(25/11/05) Suikerhervorming: Parlement moet stem laten horen, geld moet naar diversificatie

• 2005-11-25

The Agricultural Council's compromise on the Reform of the EU Sugar market

Compromise on the EU sugar regime: not without the Parliament

"The sugar price reductions of 36% are too drastic. The reform compromise will benefit the concentration of sugar production in a few EU regions and does not help developing countries", Friedrich-Graefe zu Baringdorf MEP, Vice-President of the EP Agriculture Committee, commented on the Council compromise.

"Despite the Council agreement, the reform must continue to aim at limiting the quantities of EU-produced sugar to 75 % of the internal consumption and granting the remaining quantities to the poorest developing countries in the form of preferential quotas. This may enable the developing countries to achieve higher incomes with these preferential sugar exportations and to create space for diversification of their agriculture and to ensure the security of their food supplies, instead of having to produce more and more sugar at constantly falling prices" said the MEP.

"It was right to stop subsidized sugar exportations as requested by the WTO and to cut sugar production in the EU in order to offer more export possibilities to the developing countries. The Council decision to prolong the transitional period from two to four years also enables a qualified policy for developing rural economies."

"What will be decisive now is whether the 4-5 billion € made available by the European Commission will be given to the highly profitable sugar industry to pay for the closure of their less profitable factories in peripheral areas and thus massive job cuts, or whether aid will be given to the affected farmers and workers in order to switch to other crops and income possibilities. The concerned EU regions as well as the developing countries need qualified aid for the diversification of agriculture. The sugar industry must not be allowed to benefit from public funding unless it presents concrete plans for job creation and alternative production, that should be fully notified and accepted by the Commission based on the principles of rural development."

The European Parliament made these requests after extensive hearings with all relevant NGOs and the subject will only be voted on in the Plenary in January 2006. However, as Parliament still has no co-decision in this field due to the rejection of the EU Constitution, Commission and Council ignored its demands in their compromise. This means that the only possibility remaining to us if we want to force the Council and the Commission to renegotiate is to suspend the adoption of our position. Now, Parliament should stand its ground, otherwise in the future the Council will decide what it wants and we will have disqualified ourselves as a serious decision maker in agricultural matters.

Mededeling van de Europese Commissie