Memorandum submitted by the UK Industrial
Sugar Users Group (UKISUG)
After the WTO ruling against the EU sugar
regime what can
be done to help those ACP states heavily dependent on
preferential access to the EU market?
UKISUG represents the industrial users of sugar in
the UK, who employ some 80 thousand people with annual retail
sales worth more than £15 billion last year. They account
for around 1.2 million tonnes of sugar each year, representing
about 70 per cent of UK output and worth more than £540 million.
They are therefore a significant stakeholder in the EU sugar regime.
It is important to recognise that reform of the EU
sugar regime is overall a benefit to ACP and LDC countries and
not a burden. To the extent that the existing regime benefits
them at present, it is by tying them into a system based on a
single crop grown for a single customer. This is not stable or
resilient for the long term. It institutionalises dependence rather
than equality.
It is also the case that the EU has been able to
avoid confronting the serious issues involved in establishing
sustainable pathways out of poverty. There are good reasons to
suppose that EU policy has been inadequate in this area: the sugar
regime has been a distraction, giving the impression of doing
something when in fact not doing enough.
Policies for development should be designed specifically
for the purpose. It is proven not to be adequate merely to use
the off-shoot of a regulatory regime designed with a different
objective in mind. In that light, we welcome the research commissioned
by DFID into future options for development policies.
The timetable for development and reform within the
ACP countries is likely to be longer than the timetable for reform
within the EU. This is not surprising in view of the greater challenges
faced by the ACP countries. For this reason, we should not suppose
that both reform processes will be completed at the same time.
The need for reform within the EU is urgent and should not be
held up pending reforms elsewhere in the world.
Lastly, UKISUG would also caution against making
too many assumptions at this time about the extent of reform of
the EU sugar regime. The UK government's policy is clear and welcome,
but opinion elsewhere in the EU differs. The future of the EU
sugar regime remains to be decided.
The UK government will have to be tough and determined
in the forthcoming negotiations if it is to achieve its objectives.
It should use the coming debate to ensure that the rest of the
EU is fully aware of the need to reform the regime to boost industrial
competitiveness at home and encourage economic development abroad.
November 2004
| 
