Brussels, 23/06/2005 (Agence Europe) - The radical reform of the common market organisation for sugar, which was presented by the Commission on Wednesday (see EUROPE 8975), received a welcome with reservations, to say the least, from the interested parties, and a mixed one from the politicians.
In the European Parliament, reactions were in general negative, apart from that of Fiona Hall (ALDE, UK), who is a member of the ACP/EU Parliamentary assembly, which stated in a press release that it is "indefensible to subsidise sugar production at the expense of the developing countries" and that "even though they will bring huge problems for many European farmers, these reforms are absolutely necessary". The Spanish Socialists are against the reform, announced Rosa Miguelez, who warned the Commission not to "throw the baby out with the bathwater". Ms Miguelez criticised the Commission's proposal for encouraging sugar production to be abandoned in the less competitive areas, including Spain, to concentrate on the more prosperous ones, "mostly in France". For the Socialist group, Enzo Lavarra of Italy said that he was also sceptical, stating in a press release that "obviously changes must be made to come into line with the European model of agriculture", but as it stands, this proposal risks "destroying the Italian sugar beet sector and the industry which depends on it, with repercussions on employment in a sector which provides 75,000 people with an income". German Green Friedrich-Wilhelm Graefe zu Baringdorf said that the proposal "sends out the wrong signals to sugar producers the world over and does not help the poor countries; on the contrary, it helps the sugar multinationals". He feels that lowering prices then paying out billions for reconstruction aid and compensation is absurd: "it is like throwing money down the drain". MEPs from the committee on agriculture took note of these proposals "with reservations", with rapporteur Jean-Claude Fruteau, a French Socialist member, already having stated that the reform cannot be carried out without causing problems for the producing countries. A few MEPs, like Belgian Socialist Marc Tarabella, said that consumers would also lose out, and that it is "worth betting that the kilo price for sugar will not drop one cent"..
Although it anticipated "improvements" for the overseas departments and the external plank, the French government, in the person of Dominique Bussereau, Minister for agriculture and fisheries, called for a reform presenting "general architecture which is adapted to the changes the sugar market will experience".
On the part of the lobbies and the NGOs, reactions were more moderate. The European Committee of Sugar Producers (CEFS) is concerned that "European sugar prices will no longer be high enough to ensure the viability of the European sugar sector in the long-term". In the view of the farmers represented by the General Confederation of Agricultural Co-operatives in the European Union (COPA/COGECA), who describe themselves as "profoundly concerned" by the planned reform, "first and foremost, a well-balanced sugar market requires access to the EU market to be regulated, which cannot be done without controls on imports", including imports from LDCs. Again from the world of agriculture, a platform bringing together 40 French farming and rural organisations, Agricultures durables solidaires, stated that the Commission's proposals "bring no sustainable solution to the market organisation for sugar", and that the regulation of the Community market "must be implemented using tools to control and share out production". In the view of the consumers, there can be no certainty that this reform will completely get rid of the unfair dumping which harms farmers from the developing countries: the European Consumers' Union also stressed that "consumers cannot hope to see any reduction in prices". The CIUS (Committee of Industrial Users of Sugar) "is encouraged by the proposal, but calls for greater competition on the sugar market. This is a genuine opportunity to increase the competitiveness of the entire sugar industry, from the farmers to the buyers". Lastly, the NGOs are unanimous in their condemnation of a directive which is a "particularly bitter pill for the countries of the South", as Oxfam described it, and of EU sugar which is "not quite so sweet for the poor countries and for the environment" in the view of the World Wildlife Fund (WWF). If Oxfam, alongside the ACP countries and the LDCs, spoke out against "a cruel and brutal reform" (see EUROPE 8975), the WWF adds a lack of consideration for the environmental impact to these charges: by obliging the poorest countries to reduce their running costs for the sugar industry to remain competitive, the EU is preventing them from investing in "efficient irrigation systems and techniques to reduce soil erosion and pollution". Oxfam and the WWF both call for an action plan for the ACPs with more generous funding than the 40 million EUR provided for by the Commission's proposal, and called for an envelope of 500 million EUR, which would allow more countries to benefit.