Divergent stakeholder views on sugar-sector reform
At the end of September the industry federation representing EU chocolate, biscuit and confectionary manufacturers (CAOBISCO), welcomed the Commission's communication on reform of the EU sugar regime, arguing that 'the sugar regime is long overdue for reform'. It describes the current regime as 'economically disastrous'. The fact that EU sugar users, both direct consumers and industrial consumers pay three and half times the world market price was described as 'simply unsustainable'. In contrast, the industry body representing sugar millers (CEFS), called for more attention to be given to the 'fixed quota' option when looking at options for reform. CEFS maintains that since 1968 the sugar regime has 'played an important role in ensuring sustainable and high quality sugar production and in providing employment in rural areas throughout the EU'. It argues that 'it is essential that any reform of the Sugar CMO is not carried out at the expense of the livelihoods of European and developing-country producers'. Like the Commission it sees the 'liberalisation option' as 'completely untenable'. However CEFS disagrees with the Commission's favoured 'fall in price' option, claiming it is likely to have 'irreversible adverse consequences for sugar production' in more EU regions than foreseen in the Commission analysis. It also notes that it would be liable to 'cause irreparable damage to the sugar industries of our traditional suppliers among the ACP countries'. CEFS describes the 'fall in price' option as essentially a de facto 'liberalisation' option. On this basis the CEFS strongly advocates a reassessment of the 'fixed quotas' option. Comment: The strong support for reform of COABISCO highlights the importance of sugar-sector reform to the development of the value-added food-processing industry in the EU. EU policy is increasingly focussing on this area.
| Main Author: | |
|---|---|
| Format: | News Item biblioteca |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Technical Centre for Agricultural and Rural Cooperation
2003
|
| Online Access: | https://hdl.handle.net/10568/52839 http://agritrade.cta.int/Back-issues/Agriculture-monthly-news-update/2003/December-2003 |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| Summary: | At the end of September the industry federation
representing EU chocolate, biscuit and confectionary manufacturers
(CAOBISCO), welcomed the Commission's communication on reform of
the EU sugar regime, arguing that 'the sugar regime is long overdue
for reform'. It describes the current regime as 'economically disastrous'.
The fact that EU sugar users, both direct consumers and industrial
consumers pay three and half times the world market price was described
as 'simply unsustainable'.
In contrast, the industry body representing
sugar millers (CEFS), called for more attention to be given to the
'fixed quota' option when looking at options for reform. CEFS maintains
that since 1968 the sugar regime has 'played an important role in
ensuring sustainable and high quality sugar production and in providing
employment in rural areas throughout the EU'. It argues that 'it
is essential that any reform of the Sugar CMO is not carried out
at the expense of the livelihoods of European and developing-country
producers'.
Like the Commission it sees the 'liberalisation
option' as 'completely untenable'. However CEFS disagrees with the
Commission's favoured 'fall in price' option, claiming it is likely
to have 'irreversible adverse consequences for sugar production'
in more EU regions than foreseen in the Commission analysis. It
also notes that it would be liable to 'cause irreparable damage
to the sugar industries of our traditional suppliers among the ACP
countries'. CEFS describes the 'fall in price' option as essentially
a de facto 'liberalisation' option. On this basis the CEFS strongly
advocates a reassessment of the 'fixed quotas' option.
Comment:
The strong support for reform of COABISCO highlights the importance
of sugar-sector reform to the development of the value-added food-processing
industry in the EU. EU policy is increasingly focussing on this
area. |
|---|