JiscMail Logo
Email discussion lists for the UK Education and Research communities

Help for CARIBBEAN-STUDIES Archives


CARIBBEAN-STUDIES Archives

CARIBBEAN-STUDIES Archives


CARIBBEAN-STUDIES@JISCMAIL.AC.UK


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

CARIBBEAN-STUDIES Home

CARIBBEAN-STUDIES Home

CARIBBEAN-STUDIES  2006

CARIBBEAN-STUDIES 2006

Options

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password

Subject:

Week in Europe

From:

Amanda Sives <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Amanda Sives <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Tue, 14 Mar 2006 13:49:29 +0000

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (48 lines)

The Week in Europe
  By David Jessop
   
  The final battle to determine how much money the European Union (EU) will make available for the restructuring needs of all eighteen African Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) sugar producing nations is now underway in Brussels.
   
  Last year the EU decided to reduce the price its pays for ACP and EU sugar by 36 per cent over four years starting in mid 2006. It did so in response to a World Trdae Organisation (WTO) ruling following a complaint by Brazil, Australia and Thailand. 
   
  But whereas a Euro 7.5 billion long-term restructuring fund was rapidly agreed for European beet sugar producers and refiners, just Euro 40m was made available for ACP cane farmers for 2006. Since then a fierce debate has been raging over the so called accompanying measures for ACP producers which in turn has become a part of an inter-European battle over budgetary issues that for the most part have nothing to do with sugar.
   
  As matters now stand, sources suggest that far from making available the Euro190m per annum from 2007 onwards that Europe’s Trade Commissioner, Peter Mandelson, and its Agriculture Commissioner, Mariann Fischer Boel, announced in the run up to the WTO ministerial meeting in Hong Kong last December, the sums now being considered are substantially less.
   
  Although no final decision has been reached, the figure under consideration within the European Commssion (EC) for inclusion in the European Union’s 2007-13  budget looks likely to start at Euro 140m in the first year and climb to a maximum of Euro 170m towards the end of the seven year period. If these figures hold, this will mean that the majority of the financial support for ACP producers will come after they have suffered the full effect of the price cuts. That is to say the support will be backloaded rather than frontloaded as ACP producers require. 
   
  In private, Commission officials claim that the reason that the figures being discussed are below the announced Euro 190m per annum is because the ACP recipient states “lack absorptive capacity”. However their counterparts in member states suggest that the original figure announced by Commssioners was never based on any sound calculation but was simply a ploy “to ease decision making” at the WTO’s Hong Kong meeting.
   
  One consequence is that Europe’s Trade Commissioner, perhaps fearing a backlash, is understood to now be arguing to his colleagues that the figure could be slightly higher than the Euro 1.1 billion in total that is being proposed over the seven year period for ACP producers. He is also suggesting that frontloading is essential. 
   
  This seemingly large figure is still far from the Euro 1.8 billion that one member state’s studies believe is required to effect a viable transition. 
   
  Unfortunately, trying to make the Caribbean case with the European Commission, with all of Europe’s member states and the European Parliament for a just settlement has become very difficult. 
   
  The European Commission has either as a matter of strategy or by default, divorced the decision on the quantum of support for sugar from the agreement on the regulation that establishes the criteria determining its allocation. Put more simply there is in effect a two-track approach: one for the money and another for the regulation. Worse it seems that both processes bear no relationship to the amounts indicated in the multi-annual plans that have been produced at the express request of the EC by most ACP protocol nations to identify need.
   
  What this means is that the final decision on the amount ACP sugar producers will receive has become a function of an inter-European Union process rather than need. Thus the most important aspect of the final decision – the overall sum available for transitional support - will largely be decided on the basis of political horse-trading between the EC, the Council and the Parliament over the EU's budget.
   
  As matters now stand Europe’s member states and the European Parliament have been given no clear idea by the EC as to the overall quantum of need on a country-by-country basis and have not been made aware that each ACP nation requires a different type of programme and possibly different delivery mechanisms. This means that both parties to the co-decision on accompanying measures for sugar have no objective basis whatsoever to decide on the most appropriate criteria to determine who gets what or the quantum of support that should be included in the budget. 
   
  Just as importantly, the EC has been unable to give any assurances that the body that delivers development assistance, EuropeAid, is prepared procedurally with the necessary legal cover to deliver without seeking timely derogations, the varied mix of public private schemes for sugar required by some ACP states. 
   
  When Europe offered all eighteen ACP sugar producing states Euro 40m for for 2006, producer nations made clear that this was only acceptable if credible assistance was forthcoming in the longer term. They also argued in Hong Kong that getting the level of assistance wrong could have very serious repercussions and that they would not join any consensus on a final WTO agreement without a satisfactory settlement on sugar.  
   
  What all of this seems to point to is a rapidly diminishing level of coherence on the part of the EC towards the Caribbean. 
   
  In short order it has without any substantive consultation produced a policy paper on the Caribbean that argues for enhanced political dialogue and new approaches to development; is engaged in the third and final phase of Economic Partnership agreements that are meant to be developmental and encourage regional integration and growth; and is seeking closer European co-ordination to halt the 300 tonnes of cocaine and weapons that come to Europe via the Caribbean each year; while at the same time undercutting the region’s development prospects and stability by failing to guarantee a successful transition in sugar.
   
  As this is being written a high-level sugar delegation from the region is returning home from talks in London, Brussels, Vienna and Helsinki. Coincidentally so too is the Brazilian President, Ignacio Lula da Silva who has been on a state visit to the United Kingdom. 
  Both might usefully reflect on where a failure to deliver on sugar will leave the viability of the joint British/Brazilian proposal for a meeting of all heads of state to call for a decisive push to complete the WTO Doha Round.
   
  David Jessop is the Director of the Caribbean Council and can be contacted at [log in to unmask]
  Previous columns can be found at www.caribbean-council.org
  March 10th, 2006
   
   

		
---------------------------------
To help you stay safe and secure online, we've developed the all new Yahoo! Security Centre.

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

JiscMail Tools


RSS Feeds and Sharing


Advanced Options


Archives

March 2024
February 2024
January 2024
December 2023
November 2023
October 2023
September 2023
August 2023
July 2023
June 2023
May 2023
April 2023
March 2023
February 2023
January 2023
December 2022
November 2022
October 2022
September 2022
August 2022
July 2022
June 2022
May 2022
April 2022
March 2022
February 2022
January 2022
December 2021
November 2021
October 2021
September 2021
August 2021
July 2021
June 2021
May 2021
April 2021
March 2021
February 2021
January 2021
December 2020
November 2020
October 2020
September 2020
August 2020
July 2020
June 2020
May 2020
April 2020
March 2020
February 2020
January 2020
December 2019
November 2019
October 2019
September 2019
August 2019
July 2019
June 2019
May 2019
April 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
2006
2005
2004
2003
2002
2001
2000
1999


JiscMail is a Jisc service.

View our service policies at https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/policyandsecurity/ and Jisc's privacy policy at https://www.jisc.ac.uk/website/privacy-notice

For help and support help@jisc.ac.uk

Secured by F-Secure Anti-Virus CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager