Summary: July 14, 2005: European Parliament: A sour reaction to the sugar reform at EP hearing (Strasbourg)
Both "incomplete" and "too radical": the sugar reform proposed by the European Commission left a bitter taste for MEPs and stakeholders on Wednesday. In the first EP public hearing to follow Commissioner Mariann FISCHER BOEL's presentation of the reform to the Common Market Organisation on Sugar, there was broad consensus that the social aspects of the package needed to be strengthened, while trade with non-EU sugar producing countries had to be reviewed to avoid fraudulent
sales.
Agriculture committee rapporteur on sugar Jean-Claude FRUTEAU (PES, FR) was unhappy that some points made by Parliament in its March resolution were missing from the Commission's proposal. "The proposed reform focuses too much on competitiveness and largely ignores the social consequences," he said. Mr Fruteau also argued that the Commission had failed to find new uses for sugar surpluses: "In the long term we will have to look for alternative energy sources. In this instance, why not
turn to sugar to produce bio fuels? Yet the Commissioner hasn't come up with anything new on this".
On 22 June, Commissioner Fischer Boel unveiled her plans for reform which include subsidy cuts as high as 39% for producers, as well as sweeteners for those who leave the industry and compensation for ACP countries. Failure to reform the sector could lead to its "slow and painful death", she argued. The sugar sector is the only Common Market Organisation which has remained unreformed since the inception of the Common Agriculture Policy.
Sugar producers & MEPs up in arms
There was criticism across the board from stakeholders, who all deemed the reform "too radical". Hubert CHAVANNES, of the International Confederation of European Beet Growers (CIBE), argued that the Commission Proposal was "too drastic in terms of reducing production and prices and it doesn't ensure the sustainability of the sector". He claimed that "the Commission is doing too little about the import problem and it has abandoned any expectation of export". Ricardo SERRA-ARIAS,
Vice-President of the Committee of Agricultural Organisations in the EU (COPA), called for the rejection of the proposal, as "it has confirmed the sector's most pessimistic predictions". In his opinion, "it lacks solidarity, as it creates a major division between producers".
Most Members of the Agriculture committee shared those views. Georgios PAPASTAMKOS (EPP-ED, GR) felt the reform was drafted by the Commission "from its Ivory tower, without any form of consultation". Agriculture committee vice-chair Janusz WOJCIECHOWSKI (EPP-ED, PL) called for "impact study to be run by the Commission before implementing such a far-reaching reform", whereas Marìa Isabel SALINAS GARCIA (PES, ES) & Agnes SCHIERHUBER (EPP-ED, AT) respectively dubbed
it "disproportionate" and "with no structure".
Among the rare supporters of the reform, the director of the European Consumers Organisation BEUC, Jim MURRAY, stressed that it finally put an end to the dumping of EU sugar on world markets. Also, he pointed out that "consumers should not pay to maintain the sugar industry in twenty one Member States when production in ten or fifteen countries could suffice." Industrial Users of Sugar representatives Alain BEAUMONT and David ZIMMER also felt that the reform was much needed
as "companies who act in a competitive market should be able to buy raw material at a competitive price."
Tackling external issues
Sugar rapporteur Jean-Claude Fruteau also argued that there were blatant shortcomings in the "Everything But Arms" provisions (EBA: duty free and quota free access for the least developed countries), which do not address the possible resale of sugar by non-EU countries at EU-guaranteed prices. Jean-Louis BARJOL, of the European Confederation of Sugar producers, saw the EBA shortcomings as a "Trojan horse", likely to wreak havoc on the European industry if limitations are not introduced.
"EBA aspects of the reform need to be revisited", argued Alain LIPIETZ (Greens/EFA, FR).
Reform of the sugar CMO also affects those ACP countries linked to the EU by the Sugar Protocol, annexed to the ACP-EU Partnership Agreement. Arvin BOOLELL, representing Mauritius, and Derrick HEAVEN, president of the Sugar Industry Authority of Jamaica stressed that, without substantial EU support, the consequences of the reform would be "disastrous for the economic and social fabric" of their countries, which are among the most affected by the reform. Stefan TANGERMANN of
the OECD recognised that some ACP countries would lose out, but he said they should not block the reform. These countries could also ultimately benefit from the changes, since, "the arrangements with ACP countries are understandable for historical reasons, but they make the countries dependent [on the EU]" while financial aid would achieve better results. Alison BURROWS, the representative of Australia, also supported the reform, arguing that the existing system was not all that
favourable for developing countries. She gave the example of Colombia, which suffered from competition with the EU, and which was strongly supporting the reform.
Wrapping up the hearing, Agriculture Committee chairman Joseph DAUL (EPP-ED, FR) warned that "all the EP committees concerned will duly assess the reform but if uncertainty persists about its financing, they will be left with an uneasy job".
| Top |
European Union Member States
Alerts by email
Email this page
Print this page