Verbatim report of proceedings

Tuesday, 17 January 2006 - Strasbourg

12. Common organisation of the market in sugar – Support schemes for farmers (sugar) – Restructuring the sugar industry

  President. The next item is the joint debate on

- the report (A6-0391/2005) by Mr Fruteau on behalf of the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development on the proposal for a Council regulation on the common organisation of the markets in the sugar sector (COM(2005)0263 – C6 0243/2005 – 2005/0118(CNS));

- the report (A6-0392/2005) by Mr Fruteau on behalf of the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development on the proposal for a Council regulation amending Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 establishing common rules for direct support schemes under the common agricultural policy and establishing certain support schemes for farmers (COM(2005)0263 – C6-0244/2005 – 2005/0119(CNS)), and

- the report (A6-0393/2005) by Mr Fruteau on behalf of the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development on the proposal for a Council regulation establishing a temporary scheme for the restructuring of the sugar industry in the European Community and amending Regulation (EC) No 1258/1999 on the financing of the common agricultural policy (COM(2005)0263 – C6-0245/2005 – 2005/0120(CNS)).

  Mariann Fischer Boel, Member of the Commission. Madam President, first of all, I would like to thank Mr Daul, Mr Barón Crespo, Mr Fazakas and Mrs Morgantini for their proactive involvement in this dossier, and to praise the impressive work accomplished by the rapporteurs, Mr Fruteau, Mr Glattfelder, Mr Wynn and Mrs Kinnock. Let me also thank the members of the Committees on Agriculture and Rural Development, International Trade, Budgetary Control and Development for their strong commitment, their helpful input and the very constructive debate. These impressive contributions certainly have produced results. The reform of the common market organisation that has remained practically unchanged for almost four decades is a major undertaking; in fact this reform is long overdue.

Sugar policy has many facets. The list of legitimate interests that need to be met is very long: the hundreds of thousands of farmers who grow sugar beet in the community; the sugar producing and consuming industries and their workers; the consumers; and, last but not least, our trade partners, including those countries enjoying longstanding preferences. From the beginning, I have been aware of the need to strike a fine balance between the different needs and the different demands.

As Commissioner for Agriculture and Rural Development, I am fully aware of the social, economic and environmental relevance of the sugar sector, both inside and outside the Community. That makes sugar policy particularly challenging, which is why I have committed myself so deeply to the reform of this sector.

I believe that the present proposals in their entirety respond to the needs of the Community. They are the result of careful reflection and are in tune in the CAP reform package and our international commitments. We have been ambitious and far-reaching. I am convinced that the future of the sugar sector cannot be based on short-term approaches.

The reform package seeks to give the European sugar sector a viable and competitive future. It offers long-term certainty and generous assistance to help both farmers and sugar producers with the process of adjustment. By acting now, we will have the funds available to ease the painful restructuring process that is absolutely vital and at the same time compensate our farmers. Delaying this necessary reform would result in nothing but a more drastic reduction of Community production and a much more severe restructuring process. We also need to ensure the compliance of the future regime with the WTO panel, and our proposal fulfils that requirement.

Finally, we have to ensure that the European Union remains an attractive market for developing countries, and offer our ACP partners the necessary financial assistance to adapt to these unavoidable changes. Much useful work has been done since the first communication from the Commission was presented in the summer of 2004, both in the European Parliament and in the Council. As a result, today we have the contours of a reform that has to a very large extent been shaped by Parliament. Most obvious is that the entire reform is built on the basis of a restructuring fund, which was an idea originally introduced by the European Parliament in the report by Mr Fruteau and Mr Daul at the beginning of last year.

There are many other examples of the European Parliament’s influence on this reform: the retention of the intervention system during a transitional period; the reduction of the price cuts and its extension over a four-year period with a generous compensation scheme; all the measures taken to more adequately ensure the management of supply; the possibilities of making a real difference in those areas that will be most affected by the restructuring; and the allocation of the restructuring aid, of which at least 10% would be reserved for sugar beet growers and machinery contractors – an amount that could be increased by Member States according to their specific situations. All these fingerprints show that we have had collaboration that has gone beyond the expression of intention and has delivered a real political result.

I want to express my sincere thanks to the European Parliament for its cooperation.

  Jean-Claude Fruteau (PSE), rapporteur. – (FR) Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the European Union is today faced with the necessity of reforming its sugar sector. As we all know, this reform is unavoidable. It is necessary because we need to bring the common organisation of the market in sugar into line with the guiding principles of the new common agricultural policy. It is also necessary in order to adapt to the changing rules of world trade.

All the same, we must not lose sight of the consequences of the coming changes for the men and women who make their living from producing sugar in the fields and factories of the Community and in the developing countries. With this in mind, it is important that the changes to the European sugar sector do not result in the dismantling of our common organisation of the market in sugar, in the gradual closure of our production capacity or in the sacrifice of our producers and those of the poorest countries in consequence of an uncontrolled opening of world trade. Reform is essential, that is true, but it will only meet its objectives if the quest for efficiency respects the requirements of social justice.

This twin perspective, which makes for balance, is the common thread running through the three reports on which the European Parliament is to vote this week and which were adopted almost unanimously by the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development on 29 November last. These texts are the fruit of several months’ discussions and hearings in the Committee on Agriculture and of exchanges of views with yourself, Commissioner, with your services and with the various parties concerned in the industry. They represent a compromise negotiated and approved by a large majority of the political groups in this Parliament.

There are four major aspects to this compromise. The first is the introduction of flexible regulation of the sugar market. Flexibility, then, through the gradual introduction of market logic into the sector; I am referring to the reference price, which will make the sector more competitive. Regulation, too, however, to avoid the disastrous consequences of a totally deregulated sugar market.

Internally, this means maintaining the intervention system for a time so as to guarantee market stability during the next four years, which we all know will be difficult economically.

Turning to the external aspect of the reform, the need for regulation means keeping control of sugar imports from the least developed countries. It is in fact essential today that we take account of the damage caused by the uncontrolled opening of trade, as the recent example of the western Balkans has shown. With this in mind, in order to avoid any incentive for fraud once the ‘Everything But Arms’ initiative has taken full effect, the Committee on Agriculture argues in particular for the establishment of a commercial safeguard in the form of a safeguard clause limiting exports according to the net exporter principle. This arrangement would enable us to prevent destructive triangular trade while ensuring for the least developed countries that their local populations working in the sugar-producing sector will actually benefit from the preferential trade regime with the European Union. It would not affect the growth prospects of the LDCs’ sugar industries and would be fully compatible with the objectives of the ‘Everything But Arms’ initiative.

The second major theme of the compromise before Parliament is European solidarity with, in particular, the most fragile regions. While the establishment of trade regulation will allow us to stabilise markets and avoid excessive price fluctuations in the future, it must in fact be accompanied by measures to cushion the reform’s impact on the communities most affected by cessation of activity, above all those which are most fragile.

These include, first of all, farmers; they must receive substantial compensation for their loss of income, and some of the aid provided by the restructuring scheme should allow those who will lose their delivery rights and will be forced to make new investments in order to switch to other crops to be indemnified.

Then there are the people employed in sugar factories. They are totally dependant on the sector’s future restructuring, and it is essential, where there is cessation of industrial activity, that they be considered by strengthening the conditions that manufacturers will have to satisfy in order to receive aid from the restructuring fund. Finally, to avoid the most fragile regions being the main casualties of the restructuring of Community production, it is essential that the Member States should still have the final say over whether production ceases or continues on their territory.

It is also essential that due and proper account be taken of the specific situations and constraints of the outermost regions. The growing and processing of sugar cane are essential to those regions and irreplaceable, in economic, social and cultural terms. In this connection, Commissioner, I would like to thank you for being such a good listener and for the efforts you have made to ensure that these regions receive special treatment, especially as regards compensation and sales aid. I am sure that such schemes, for which Parliament has called, will enable the people of those regions who make their living from sugar cane to look to the future with greater equanimity.

The third aspect of the reform is concerned with the sector’s future through the development of alternative outlets. In a world context characterised, on the one hand, by rising oil prices and, on the other, by the need to fight greenhouse gases, alcohol production in the sugar sector in fact offers a major asset for the development of alternative energies. In view of the impact of the reform of the COM on production levels, the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development therefore proposes anticipating these trends by means of a proactive policy involving both the agricultural and the industrial aspects: the agricultural by means of measures to improve access to aid for energy crops in particular, the industrial by adapting the restructuring scheme to encourage the development of bioethanol distilleries. These tools form part of a coherent legislative proposal that would encourage the development of the bioethanol industry, a source of outlets for both farmers and manufacturers in the sector.

Finally, the fourth and last major thrust of our work, but not the least: prices. By contrast to the Commission’s original proposals, which would have a drastic effect on the sector, the rural fabric and the developing countries, the Committee on Agriculture in the end came out in favour of a slower and more moderate 30% reduction in sugar prices over four years. Such a level of price reduction would guarantee the reform’s economic effectiveness while helping to soften its impact on the sector’s players. In so doing, it would better guarantee continued activity in the production regions, safeguarding hundreds of thousands of jobs directly and indirectly related to the sector. This more moderate approach is also in line with the Community’s development commitments and will enable the ACP and LDC countries which export part of their production to the EU to continue to practice remunerative prices.

At the end of November, in anticipation of the World Trade Organisation conference in Hong Kong and without waiting for Parliament’s final vote, the Ministers of Agriculture of the twenty-five Member States reached an informal, provisional compromise on the main directions of the future reform. While the real purpose of that agreement was to arrive at a common political line, the way it was immediately exploited by the various signatories in the media as meaning that the reform had been settled ahead of schedule nevertheless sends a clear message: I believe it expresses the desire of the Commission and the Council to bypass the European Parliament, whose prior opinion is nevertheless mandatory before any decision is taken. In this respect, I find the procedure totally unacceptable and it must be condemned in the strongest terms.

However that may be, that compromise is now on the table and while it does not follow the Committee on Agriculture’s proposed amendments to the letter, it has to be said that, as it stands, it is a remarkable confirmation of how far the Council has moved from the original proposals.

The compromise marks an appreciable shift towards the more moderate and more balanced measures proposed by the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development on the four major topics I have just mentioned. In terms of regulation, it takes up the idea of maintaining the intervention system for four years, before moving to a reference price, which will mark the introduction of the logic of the market into the common organisation of the market in sugar. Secondly, and more importantly, it confirms the soundness of Parliament’s analysis regarding the need to retain some ability to manage the supply of sugar on the Community market. While the measures proposed are different, their philosophies converge along the lines of adapting the ‘Everything But Arms’ initiative.

Concerning the implementation of European solidarity, the Council backs the increase in aid to farmers, proposing a compensation of 64.2% of lost earnings instead of the 60% initially proposed. It also takes up the idea of transferring to farmers 10% of the money provided for restructuring aid. Parliament’s proposal for a partial coupling and a modulation of aid for the less-favoured regions was not adopted, however.

Concerning the third line of approach, alternative outlets, the Ministers of Agriculture of the twenty-five Member States confirmed the possibility of a partial dismantling of factories, enabling bioethanol distilleries to be developed. Nevertheless, the hoped-for financial incentives for the development of energy crops have not materialised. Finally, in the field of prices, the 36% reduction over four years envisaged by the Council is not so quick or drastic as the initial proposals and is entirely consistent with the work done by the European Parliament’s Committee on Agriculture.

Despite this undeniable progress, which must be welcomed, a number of proposals have not been taken up, in particular as regards tightening up the conditions that manufacturers will have to satisfy in order to qualify for restructuring aid. It is in this regard particularly regrettable that the Council has up until now disregarded all the social criteria that must be complied with and the fact that it is ultimately up to the Member States to approve or otherwise any cessations of production. Moreover, even if it means departing from what is, strictly speaking, the subject of this debate and of my reports, I really must at this point express my outrage at the way the ACP countries are treated. In the light of a reform, and in particular a price cut, the consequences of which will be disastrous for a great many of them, the sum of EUR 40 million allocated by the Council for 2006 can only be considered derisory and insulting. The European Union really will have to find the resources necessary to remedy this situation, which contrasts with what the Heads of State or Government have repeatedly said about helping the poorest countries to develop.

It is clear, ladies and gentlemen, that the Ministers of Agriculture will have to continue their efforts during the February negotiations if they are to reach a final agreement that is acceptable to all. With this in mind, I would like Parliament to vote in favour of the three reports before it with the largest possible majority in order to send a strong signal to the members of the Council so that the remaining gaps in November’s provisional compromise are closed and the COM in sugar is reformed in a way that is both fair and efficient.

  Glenys Kinnock (PSE), draftsman of the opinion of the Committee on Development. – Madam President, I thank the Commissioner and Mr Fruteau for dealing so well with what is an extremely contentious and difficult issue.

Clearly the reform of the sugar sector is essential, but I cannot agree that the collateral damage of what is an internal European Union reform should be felt by some of the small, vulnerable economies with whom we have very special relationships and partnerships.

Throughout the discussions the ACP countries have made the case for a gradual price cut, an end to dumping and for additional long-term funding to help them deal with what is a drastic reform. By and large, their pleas have been rejected. It is the view of the ACP countries, as Mr Fruteau has intimated, that they have been abandoned and betrayed by what is on the table now. They have no guarantee of where the money is to come from in the long term to help them restructure and to diversify both within and outside of sugar. In the Caribbean alone the losses as a result of the cuts are expected to be in the region of EUR 125 million.

The ACP Sugar Protocol countries supplied tropical sugar when Europe needed it. Now they are asking that we understand the inevitable dependence they have on that commodity, one upon which they depend for foreign exchange earnings which have brought stability to them and have ensured that they maintain democracies.

Compensation amounting to EUR 7.5 billion is on the table for European farmers. So far the ACP has EUR 40 million, which is to be divided between 18 countries, and it is not even clear how it is going to be divided. In addition, Commissioner Mandelson warned last night in the WTO debate that the figure of EUR 190 million, which the Commission has proposed, is now threatened by a 20% cut agreed in the EU’s budget negotiations.

Commissioner, where exactly is that money going to come from? Is it yet again the intention of the Commission to raid the development budget to cover the cost of these accompanying measures for the ACP? I hope that the Commissioner for Development, Mr Michel, will stand firm and that, in the spirit of what you said about your interest in developing countries, you will give your support for new and additional money to cover the accompanying measures.

Another concern relates to the effects of the regulation on LDCs. I refer you to the amendments that I have submitted on that issue. Almost all of the world’s least developed countries are members of the ACP group. Therefore they have an enormous interest in the appalling suggestion that we should pull back on our commitments to Everything But Arms. From 2009 all least developed countries should benefit from the same guaranteed price as that provided for in the ACP Sugar Protocol. There should be no delay in the fulfilment of Europe’s commitments to provide duty-free, quota-free access on a stable and long-term basis to LDCs.

The safeguard clause that was agreed by the Council calls for an upper limit of a 25% increase per year on LDC imports. That makes an absolute mockery of EBA. LDCs are set to lose EUR 783 million of potential earnings in the first year alone. I hope that this Parliament will not accept a situation which jeopardises a European initiative of which we have been justifiably proud. We must not vote for any delay on the implementation or indeed for a safeguard clause, which would limit the promise offered by EBA.

In line with the objective of having coherence between agriculture and development priorities, I would recommend support for amendments on the elimination of export subsidies and the abolition of C sugar exports. If we fail to act we will be giving absolutely the wrong signal to millions of the world’s poorest people, at a time when Europe is meant to be focusing on making poverty history.

  Béla Glattfelder (PPE-DE), draftsman of the opinion of the Committee on International Trade. – (HU) Madam President, the Committee on International Trade prepared a recommendation for the draft report debated today. This had three main elements. The first element stated that the Committee proposes a moderate price cut. We proposed that the European Union restrict imports more efficiently and that sugar producing farmers in the European Union receive higher compensation.

These proposals are significantly more beneficial for the European sugar sector than those tabled by the European Commission. It is unfortunate that the decision of the Council of Agriculture Ministers, adopted in November, is extremely disappointing, as it does not take into account sufficiently the interests of European agriculture, and in fact it is even questionable that a decision adopted in this manner would lead to the development of a stable sugar market in the European Union.

Today, Parliament can only hope for minor changes, but we are still very determined in respect of a few details. For instance, we would like to make it possible for sugar beet growers to be able to receive up to a fifty percent share from the restructuring fund instead of the current ten percent.

I would like to draw attention to the fact that in the opinion of the committee, the effective restriction of imports is extremely important. For instance, even the United States of America restricts imports under preferential conditions. If the United States does not allow cheating, then the European Union should not allow it either because it undermines the international reputation of the European Union. Furthermore, a system that imposes strict quotas on producers in the European Union, but allows importers to supply the markets of the European Union without any restriction is extremely meaningless and unjust.

  Terence Wynn (PSE), draftsman of the opinion of the Committee on Budgetary Control. – Madam President, I should like to say to the Commissioner that when she first presented her proposals to the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development, I applauded. I realise that I was the only person who applauded in that committee, which put me at odds with many of my colleagues. I applauded because I have wanted reform in this sector ever since I read the 1991 report by the Court of Auditors. I have sought changes in the regime from a budget control point of view, from a budget point of view, from a development point of view, from a WTO point of view and from a consumer point of view, which puts me at odds with Mr Fruteau, for whom I have the greatest respect and whom I genuinely admire. But quite frankly, we should not accept the call for ‘the introduction of modifications’. What we need is a radical overhaul, as the Commissioner proposed. We should not vote for lesser price cuts and increased compensation and less quota cuts than those proposed by the Commission. We should not vote for structural or social cohesion policy instruments to be used to cushion sugar farmers. All ACP producers were being offered the same. Large amounts of CAP funds are already available to EU farmers. Let us not forget that sugar producers, processors and refiners are not the poorest people on this planet.

I agree that we need to monitor imports from the less-developed countries in order to prevent fraud and guard against triangular trade, but quite honestly, we are talking about tiny amounts. EU sugar production of 17 million tonnes will not be distorted; there will not be a market imbalance because of LDC imports.

Amendment 61, on the Everything But Arms Agreement, should be opposed. What we are trying to do to the least developed countries is unacceptable. We should follow the line that Mrs Kinnock has given, making sure that, whatever we do with these reforms, the developing world is not jeopardised.

  Albert Deß, on behalf of the PPE-DE Group. – (DE) Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, reform of the common organisation of the markets in sugar is one of the most major reforms to the common agricultural policy to be undertaken in the life of this Parliament. It is a balancing act on a high wire extending between, on the one hand, the demands made by the WTO, the obligations arising from the ‘Everything but Arms’ initiative and the panel’s decision, and, on the other, the producers of beet and cane sugar and the economic interests associated with them in Europe.

The Commission, represented by Commissioner Fischer Boel, Parliament and, above all, the Council bear the brunt of responsibility for this high-wire performance. Some 350 000 farming families and well over 100 000 workers in the relevant economic sectors of the EU are affected by it. Many sugar beet farmers and worker in sugar factories still want to know why it is so necessary to reform, and on such a massive scale, a sugar market organisation that has stood the test of decades. The answer is a very simple one: it is because the international commitments made long ago mean that, in the absence of reform, the future of beet and cane sugar cultivation in the European Union will be very much in doubt after 2009.

Reform of the common market organisation for sugar gives us the chance to keep a great deal of production in Europe, even though it will result in painful reductions in income for sugar producers. It is unfortunate – as Mr Fruteau indeed said – that, following the Council’s agreement of 24 November, the Commission and the Council of Ministers gave the impression that that had put the seal on the sugar market organisation. The fact is, though, that this agreement was no more and no less than a declaration of intent on the part of the Council. It is only when the ministers next meet, on 19 February, that the Council will be able to adopt the sugar market reform.

I am glad to see that the Council of Ministers has, to a significant degree, taken on board the demands we made in our motion for a resolution on 10 March 2005. For example, the Commission envisaged price reductions of up to 50% in the price of beet sugar. A majority on the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development wanted a reduction of 30% in the price of white sugar; the Council agreed to 36%. In its proposal, the Commission envisaged 60% for compensation payments, while the Council wants to increase them to 64.2%.

It is also heartening to see that the reform is to run until 2014/2015, and that there is to be no transfer of quotas from one Member State to another. It is at this point that I would like to thank the new German Agriculture Minister, Mr Horst Seehofer, who, shortly after being sworn in, promptly played a significant part during negotiations in the Council in getting the Commission’s proposals changed to the benefit of the European Union’s beet and cane sugar cultivators.

It is above all in the restructuring fund that improvements are needed. The Council’s plan is that at least 10% of the funds provided for restructuring will be used for agriculture. The Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development is calling for at least 50% to be used for the creation of alternative means of agricultural production, and, when it comes to the final decision on that in the Council, I ask you, Commissioner Fischer Boel, and the Council, to take account of the way this House votes.

It is evident from Russia’s use of gas supplies to Ukraine as a means of political blackmail that we have to seize every opportunity to make the European Union just that bit more independent in energy matters. It is within the capacities of European agriculture to use agricultural land no longer required for food production to produce energy in the form of biomass. The Commission and the Council must support economically viable energy production by using the restructuring fund to provide start-up finance, and must do everything possible, to enable a stop to be put to the so-called triangular operations, to which reference has already been made.

In my capacity as shadow rapporteur for the Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats, I would like, in particular, to thank the chairman of the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development, Mr Daul, and the rapporteur, Mr Fruteau, for their outstanding cooperation on the report on the reform of the common market organisation for sugar. I also wish to thank all those other Members who have made a constructive contribution to this report.

When, on Thursday, we vote on the reform of the sugar market, this House will be sending out a signal and demanding that the Commission and the Council change their declarations of intent, even if only in a few respects.

  Katerina Batzeli, on behalf of the PSE Group. – (EL) Madam President, I should like to start by congratulating the rapporteur, Mr Fruteau, on behalf of the Socialist Group in the European Parliament, for the maturity and efficiency with which he presented his proposals and for his cooperation with the political groups and all the parliamentary committees.

Unfortunately, however, I must point out that the Commission and the Council have decided to review one of perhaps the most important markets without barely waiting for the decisions by the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development.

Do you imagine, Commissioner, that the way in which you have handled the issue promotes substantial interinstitutional cooperation? Of course it does not. Do you today have at least to make a show of good cooperation with the European Parliament? Which of the European Parliament's proposals do you intend to accept? Have you been instructed and do you intend to exert dynamic pressure on the Council in this direction?

The review of the sugar industry is a premeditated crime for rural areas and for the European industry and of dubious results for developing countries, especially the less developed countries. Already in numerous regions, including my country, Greece, demonstrations have started by sugar beet producers and workers in the sugar industry – including the Greek sugar industry – due to the significant repercussions which a reduction in the order of 36% will have.

You said, Commissioner, that you aimed to make the European sugar industry viable in the European Union. Are you exaggerating or have you got the wrong figures? Both predictions and results show that the sugar industry will shrink or disappear and producers with it.

We are therefore calling, within the framework of close cooperation and a mild adaptation of the new market, for certain proposals which are expressed as proposals in the Fruteau report.

First, substantial compensation for loss of income, mainly for the small-scale producers who will be hardest hit by the reduction in aid.

Secondly, material activation of the Reconstruction Fund, as the basis for substantial consultation with all producers and workers for the preparation of integrated operational programmes and restructuring programmes in a bid to stop areas being abandoned.

Thirdly, aid of EUR 80 per hectare for areas sown under energy crops and an increase in the overall number of hectares allowed from 1.8 to 2.8 million. This is important, because efforts are being made to switch to more environmentally friendly forms of energy.

Fourthly, the possibility of national aid for producers for a transitional period and the provision of a percentage of between approximately 30 and 50% of the sum given for the restructuring of industry to producers themselves, provided of course that they continue to cultivate other crops.

Of course, what this means, Commissioner, is that you undertake to safeguard the sugar budget during negotiations on the financial perspectives. Otherwise, it will be cheque returned to drawer which, in the wake of the Commission's poor organisational skills, will reinforce the lack of credibility of the Community institutions in the mind of European citizens.

  Niels Busk, on behalf of the ALDE Group. – (DA) Madam President, first and foremost, I should like to congratulate Mrs Fischer Boel on this reform. It was an ambitious proposal that the Commission put forward, and the compromise subsequently adopted by the Council is an excellent one. The result is clear: more free trade where sugar is concerned. Over the next few years, the world’s poorest countries will be given free access to the European market, and the price of sugar will be reduced to something closer to its price on the world market.

I am annoyed that Parliament has made its contribution too late. In spite of many calls to get things under way last year, we are now in a situation in which we have had our day, as the decision has already been made in the Council of Agriculture Ministers. That does not mean that the European Parliament has made no impression on the reform. On the contrary. Quite a few features of the reform reflect the wishes expressed by the European Parliament. For example, the section on restructuring reflects our desire to strengthen those regions in which sugar cane production is crucial.

I am very pleased that we have, at long last, adopted a reform of the common organisation of the market in sugar, which has existed largely unchanged for 40 years. By means of this reform, we have taken a good long step in the right direction: towards something that is more in the way of a market economy. However, I should like us to go still further. It is not enough to bring about free trade with countries outside the Community, as the fact is, of course, that we do not have a free market within the EU. Only once we have removed the national quotas so that production occurs in the places that are best for it and where it is most profitable shall we be able to talk in terms of having a free internal market.

There are quite a few features of the reform worth emphasising. Unfortunately, time does not permit me to do so. I want particularly to mention the proposal for increasing the use of biofuel and the production of ethanol, in which I believe we must invest a very great deal as quickly as possible. That is something that, fortunately, a number of Member States are doing. Meanwhile, others are procrastinating and have not yet begun investing. It is not only sugar cane but also other crops that can be cultivated in areas previously given over to sugar cane and that can be used for biofuel which – environmentally, economically and in terms of supply – will be an important part of future energy production.

The biggest battle in the campaign to create a basis for biofuel must be fought with the Member States’ finance ministers, who are a little too keen on the tax revenue from oil and on the contribution it makes to the state coffers. Irrespective of how justified it may be, the reform – including, in particular, the reduction in prices – will have harmful and far-reaching consequences for some of those poorest countries in the world that cannot cope with free competition in the world market. Given the very high price of sugar in the EU, we bear a very large share of the responsibility. It is therefore an urgent matter for us to appropriate adequate resources for the restructuring faced by these countries. Finally, I wish to thank the rapporteur, Mr Fruteau, for his constructive cooperation.

  Friedrich-Wilhelm Graefe zu Baringdorf, on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. – (DE) Madam President, Commissioner, we are agreed that sugar reform was necessary. The market organisation for sugar had become perverse in terms of the quantities and budgetary resources concerned: after all, exports exceeded quotas by 5–6 million tonnes, which led to a disastrous dumping effect. The benefits gained by the ACP countries who were able to supply us with a proportion of their sugar on our terms were counteracted by the collapse in prices to which we contributed by means of this dumping on the world market.

Although we were in agreement, two different approaches were proposed. On the one hand there was the idea of using quotas to return quantities to reasonable proportions and giving countries in the developing world, including the least developed countries, more involvement. On the other hand there was the Commission’s approach of starting to liberalise this organisation, cutting prices and promoting rationalisation in these fields – a solution that would culminate in full liberalisation.

We argued long and hard in committee – although there is no point going into details about this now, nor would there be time. Having noticed that there was considerable opposition within Parliament, the Commissioner proceeded to bypass our institution and, together with the Council, to conclude the matter without any regard for Parliament. She knew that she could afford to do so because, firstly, she could assume that Parliament had no power of codecision and, secondly, because she had handed out presents to those whose interests were affected by this sugar market organisation. The most generous gift – the restructuring aid of EUR 6 billion to industry – then produced a change of heart in the interest groups. That is how she managed to carry her reform through.

The only issue that still generates a great deal of opposition is the question as to how these restructuring funds will be managed. We have presented proposals for this. The scenario where farmers receive only 10% and where it is not compulsory to make business and regional development plans in which social and environmental criteria or the workers play a part, is unacceptable. My group will therefore, be proposing that this issue be referred back to committee, to enable us to negotiate it with the Commissioner and to achieve something for the farmers and the regions. If we let it go through as it is, no one will lift a finger. I hope that the other groups will follow our lead.

  Paul Verges, on behalf of the GUE/NGL Group. – (FR) Madam President, the reform of the common organisation of the market in sugar is giving rise to grave concern both in the ACP countries and in the outermost regions. That concern is particularly keen on the island of Réunion, where sugar cane is still the main crop. The mobilisation of the players in the sugar-cane sector has not been in vain. It has brought appreciable changes to the initial reform plan. We note these positive changes and pay tribute to the work done by the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development and its rapporteur.

We must not deceive ourselves, however. The measures proposed to mitigate the effects of this reform are temporary and as such merely palliatives designed solely to win acceptance for a reform the effects of which may ultimately be disastrous. The outermost regions share the same fate as the ACP countries in this respect. We cannot let them believe their future is assured. It is all the less secure because there are many uncertainties about what will happen after 2013. Apart from the inadequate Community compensation, what national compensation will there be and, more importantly, will it continue beyond 2013?

This concern is all the more legitimate because the Hong Kong summit suggested there will be a new debate starting in 2009 with implications for the European budget, including the common agricultural policy. When we know that a stock of sugar cane represents seven years’ harvest on average, after which it must be replanted, it is easy to see that these uncertainties may undermine the confidence required to meet the replanting targets hitherto supported by the European Union. Ultimately, the question is how the sugar cane sector can be saved.

Madam President, I will conclude by saying that, faced with this situation where our planters’ future is not assured beyond the life of a cane stock, it will be impossible for us to approve the report that is before us.

  Witold Tomczak, on behalf of the IND/DEM Group. – (PL) Madam President, the methods being employed to reform the sugar market run counter to the strategic goals of the EU and of the common agricultural policy.

The EU subsidises the dumping of B sugar surpluses onto the markets of third countries. This is expensive, and it leads to a distortion of international trade. Sugar production limits should be imposed primarily on countries with large B quotas, and it should be these latter that bear the cost of the reform. After all, A quotas serve to meet Member States’ own needs. Combining A and B quotas would therefore mean that many Member States would risk no longer being self-sufficient in sugar. It would also mean that those countries that have played no part in bringing about this overproduction crisis would incur unjustifiably high restructuring costs.

When viewed in the light of the reform’s goal, this proposal is unjust and illogical. The cost of solving the overproduction problems caused by a small number of Member States will be covered by others, in particular the new Member States, which after all have much lower B quotas. Why should they have to do so? The old EU Member States have been allocated a B sugar quota of 2.7 million tonnes, whereas the new Member States have only been allocated 0.12 million tonnes. Environmental concerns have also been passed over in the reform that has been proposed. Farmers will be forced to intensify their production of sugar beet and to concentrate it in selected countries and regions, all for the sake of increased competitiveness. What does this have to do with environmental protection? This reform will also work to the detriment of social, economic and regional cohesion. It will result in even more farms going out of business and in redundancies at sugar factories, which runs counter to the Lisbon Strategy. The proposed reform of the sugar market is based on a strange concept of solidarity, for which we unfortunately have the Commission and certain governments to thank.

The sugar market reform under discussion stands in contradiction to the common agricultural policy. Once again, it is becoming apparent that this policy is common…

(The President cut off the speaker)

  Sergio Berlato, on behalf of the UEN Group. – (IT) Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, we have always maintained, both in committee and in Parliament, that the Commission’s haste in pushing through its proposal – to the extent of breaking institutional and Community rules – was suspicious to say the least. The reason for such haste seemed obvious: after the World Trade Organisation negotiations, the Commissioner would certainly find it more difficult to gain approval for a reform characterised above all by major price cuts and partial compensation for losses.

Madam President, while agreeing that reform is needed, my group has always demanded that it should not only bring in the necessary changes, but above all not lose sight of the essential aim of keeping the sector internationally competitive in the medium and long term. We have therefore been opposed to the Commission’s proposal right from the start, because it aims at concentrating production in certain Member States by sacrificing the less suitable, weaker areas; thus only some areas will have to pay the price of the inevitable overall cut in European production.

Fortunately, the Council has mitigated the Commission’s original proposal, partly by introducing the chance for Member States to grant production-linked aid, up to a maximum of 30%, although the compromise achieved is not fully satisfactory and will still penalise the sector too much. At this stage Parliament must, in any case, accept the responsibilities conferred on it by the Treaties and adopt its own position.

Although it will be very difficult to reopen a debate that is now closed, when the Council comes to formally approve the reform, it must consider the possibility of including some of the vital amendments proposed by Parliament to improve the text. These include, for instance, maintaining the intervention system until 2010; varying compensatory aid according to production; making it mandatory to allocate at least 50% of the restructuring aid to sugar beet and chicory growers, to offset their loss of income; and reformulating the conditions for access to the restructuring system through the signing of a trade agreement with the sugar beet and chicory growers.

  Peter Baco (NI). – (SK) Ladies and gentlemen, I recommend that you do not approve the three reports dealing with the reform of the sugar regime. This is a reform that works against the growth, rural employment and economy of the least developed regions of the European Union and, as such, against the Lisbon Strategy as well.

The reform is not improved sufficiently even by the better amendment proposals contained in Mr Fruteau’s reports, and it will lead to the European Union losing its unique chance to play a leading role in the liberalisation of agrarian trade within the WTO framework. This is highly regrettable, because the assumption of a leading role in this issue would enable us to achieve our objectives in negotiations on the liberalisation of trade in non-agricultural commodities.

The main problem is that, rather than relying on natural market forces to correct the current over-bureaucratised regime, the reform employs a new array of untried, non-market and complex administrative restrictions. Neither quantity nor price regulation, for instance, are used in the trade in more important commodities, such as flour or cereals.

The need for a different type of reform is further prompted by the profound changes in the economics of bioenergy. For these reasons, I have already submitted proposals for a market-based regulatory system to the relevant authorities. On the question of the Fruteau reports, the House should give its support, in particular, to the recommendation of the AGRI committee, under which the Council would never be allowed to conclude a final political agreement without consulting the European Parliament. Ladies and gentlemen, I thank you for your support.

  Ville Itälä (PPE-DE). – (FI) Madam President, I first wish to thank the rapporteur, Mr Fruteau, and Mr Daul, as Chairman of the Committee, who, through their cooperation, have produced an excellent report on the issue of sugar, and one which we will have no trouble voting in favour of this week.

Although this sugar reform is vital, however, the question here is also how this process is to be undertaken and how farmers will experience it in the different Member States, and especially whether farmers in the Member States will think that they are being treated fairly in this respect.

For example, in my country, Finland, there was fear for a long time that the original Commission proposal on this subject would end sugar cultivation in our country entirely. That would certainly have happened if the Commission’s original decision had come into force. Now in Finland another sugar plant has to be closed by virtue of the impending decision and Finland itself has to pay a subsidy to its producers. There is no way anyone can say that Finland has gained from this, but now it is important that you, Commissioner, assure Finnish farmers as well as farmers in the other small Member States that in future, agreements will be kept to and that all countries will be able to engage in farming. This way needless fears can be dispelled.

Another issue is that it has been said in public that the decision has now already been taken and that Parliament can no longer do anything about it here. This is the wrong impression to give, and I hope, Commissioner, that you will reassure us that in all matters relating to agriculture, Parliament will always be heard in good time and that there will always be cooperation. Then our citizens will have confidence that this system actually works.

  Vincenzo Lavarra (PSE). – (IT) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, first of all, I too should like to congratulate the rapporteur on his report. I think the text is appreciably better than the Council’s compromise text, because it points out a way to achieve much-needed reform without drastically penalising the agricultural sector and its production, particularly in the less favoured regions. The Council compromise gives cause for concern above all because of the repercussions it would have on less suitable areas, even though the cuts in aid have been substantially reduced, while the four-year extension certainly remains an unsustainable cut-off point.

Commissioner and representatives of the Council, what I am asking – so as not to dwell on matters already dealt with by other Members – is for you to appreciate the considerable understanding shown by the committee and its Chairman, Mr Daul – the whole committee in fact – regarding the change in procedure that led to the informal compromise, in order to provide a more suitable negotiating position at the WTO. I also ask you to return the favour of Parliament’s understanding by accepting the proposed improvements to the text, which are sure to be adopted by this House, particularly so as to allow for transitional state aid in the least favoured regions and to readjust the compensation paid to farmers, especially from the restructuring fund.

  Ona Juknevičienė (ALDE). – (LT) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, I congratulate Mr Fruteau for having prepared these three particularly important presentations on reform in the sugar sector.

As early as last November, the Council agreed on the common principles of the organisation of the sugar market and the directions for reform. That was a very important decision, welcomed by us all; first, because it demonstrated our ability to agree on issues that are important to the entire Community, which unifies the Union and, second, it has strengthened our negotiating position in Hong Kong. We have shown that the Community not only articulates ideas, but is also able to take specific actions. The Community comprehends and consistently prepares to meet the challenges of globalisation.

It is a shame, of course, that the agreement was accepted by the Council without having consulted the European Parliament, which represents the interests of the European people.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, the way the reform has been designed and planned is very important, but its implementation is of even greater significance. Therefore, restructuring is a cornerstone of all three reports.

In Lithuania, the major sugar manufacturer is the Danish company Danisco Sugar. It operates factories not only in Lithuania, but also in Sweden, Germany and Finland. It is evident that the proposed reform will encourage to maintain the most efficient factories while decommissioning those operating at a loss. However, what we need to do is take into account the interests of the employees, as well as those of raw material growers, and ensure that they are not abandoned. Therefore, the reform must, first and foremost, facilitate the production of alternative products and create new businesses, and not only arrange an exit from the market.

Austria and Finland promised to complete the reform by the end of the year. The reform will only be a success if it takes into account the interests of all market players.

  Margrete Auken (Verts/ALE). – (DA) Madam President, whenever it is stated that the ACP countries will suffer if the EU’s chaotic sugar arrangements are abolished, the underlying agenda is always protection of the EU’s own production. If the ACP countries are to suffer as a result of these arrangements being abolished, it is of course because, with our absurd trading system, we have kept them in conditions resembling those of slavery, and if slaves are freed without being helped to cope successfully, they are obviously in a worse situation than before.

We should help the ACP countries to develop sustainable production. It is grotesque that we only give them a pittance, when we richly reward our own sugar producers and sugar industry. The sum of EUR 200 million proposed by Glenys Kinnock is an absolute minimum. There is a lot of money to be saved by phasing out the common organisation of the market in sugar, so such compensation is amply affordable. We should also be very pleased about the fact that many developing countries would benefit from the liberalisation of the sugar market. The social and environmental problems that are demonstrably to be found in many places must be solved through the ILO and the environmental conventions. We must support those forces that are endeavouring to have the relevant requirements implemented, for example in Brazil, and, above all, we must have those requirements accepted by the WTO as obvious trading conditions.

  Diamanto Manolakou (GUE/NGL). – (EL) I am sorry but today's debate, as far as Parliament's opinion on the sugar industry is concerned, is a mockery, given that the Council has decided and the national governments are planning to implement the harsh, anti-farming decision under which thousands of small and medium-sized holdings will be wiped out, sugar factories will close and the workers will join the ranks of the unemployed.

Already in Greece farmers and workers are demonstrating. The decisions in the new regulation drastically cut quotas and institutional prices and abolish intervention. They come under the philosophy of the new CAP and constitute tools which aim to reduce resources for farming and channel them to the repressive policies of the European Union on the pretext of terrorism.

At the same time, the decisions by the WTO demonstrate that farming – and, of course, sugar – have come under the guillotine in order to favour the interests and profitability of European industrial capital through its increased, unimpeded penetration into developing countries, so that it can exploit them better.

The rapporteur is trying with his proposals to delay the repercussions somewhat. Unfortunately, a quick or a slower death for the sugar industry ...

(The President cut off the speaker)

  Jeffrey Titford (IND/DEM). – Madam President, like the last speaker, I too wonder why we are considering these proposals. Surely the Council made a decision on 22 November and it is now a fait accompli. However, if Parliament is determined to have its say, we should remember that the sugar regime has existed virtually unchanged for almost 40 years, and yet here we are trying to introduce wholesale change almost overnight. It is a sick system which has badly needed reform for many years. However, the draconian solutions being proposed – that is, the medicine for the sickness – are likely to kill the patient in the process: it is estimated that the new regime will cause the loss of 100 000 jobs in Europe and put an end to sugar farming in countries such as Greece and Ireland. It is also likely to do incomparable damage to the economies of many European former colonies in Africa and the Caribbean, which were major beneficiaries of the old regime. I am also painfully aware that my own constituency in the east of England contains a major part of the UK’s sugar farming.

I recommend that a proper study of the effects of the new regime should be made without delay. Never let it be forgotten that our actions affect human beings out there in the real world, beyond our cloistered environment. It is a shameful indictment of this centralised bureaucratic form of government that it has taken so long to act, even then only under pressure from the WTO, and that so many people will suffer as a result.

  Janusz Wojciechowski (UEN).  – (PL) Madam President, the reform of the sugar market that we are considering today is a pseudo-reform that is dangerous, unjust, dishonest and antisocial.

It is dangerous because it will result in the EU becoming dependent on sugar supplies from the rest of the world, which will be to the detriment of our continent’s food security. It is unjust because the subsidised exports of B sugar that cause so many problems were primarily the brainchild of France and Germany, yet it is the EU as a whole that pays the price, and the new Member States that suffer the most. Instead of eliminating export surpluses, the proposal strikes at the heart of sugar production throughout Europe.

Only a few years ago, the large sugar companies in Poland paid a very low price for factories that had been privatised. These same companies will now receive several times more money for closing the factories down. This is merely one example of why the reform is dishonest.

Finally, the reform is antisocial because it ignores the plight of thousands of farmers and sugar factory workers who will lose their livelihoods, and who will find it hard to find new jobs. This pseudo-reform is worthy of the title Take the Money and Run, like the gangster film. The large sugar companies will make hundreds of millions of euros by relocating their businesses outside the European Union. We should reject this pseudo-reform for Europe’s sake.

  Jean-Claude Martinez (NI). – (FR) Madam President, Commissioner, the common market for sugar had largely been working well since 1968, as borne out by the figures: we were producing 20 million, consuming 16 million and only exporting four million, as against Brazil’s figure of 13 million.

Free trade devotees tell us, however, that European sugar has created economic diabetes among the poor countries. Accordingly, in order to eradicate poverty in the sugar cane world, sugar must be eradicated from the Europe of sugar beet. This outlook has led to three Community regulations, along with a 36% price cut – and the accompanying drop in revenue – and the opening up of the market in 2009 to triangular trade in sugar via the Balkans or the least developed countries, to the benefit, of course, of the large operators.

The upshot of all this is clear to all. Despite Mr Fruteau’s laudable efforts, we are set to become sugar importers, the European taxpayer will have to foot the bill for a series of indemnities to the ACP and, after 2015, Europe’s agri-food industry will be shoved aside. Furthermore, given that by 2015 China and India are set to be huge agri-food importers, Brazil will be feeding Asia while Europe is out of the picture.

Just one question, Commissioner: why, 20 years on, do you dislike the small farmers of Europe ...

(The President cut off the speaker)

  Agnes Schierhuber (PPE-DE). – (DE) Madam President, Commissioner, I should like to express my particular thanks to the rapporteur for his work. I can support this compromise, which was reached in the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development following intensive discussions and negotiations; but at the same time we have to be aware of the impact these three reports have on European agriculture in general and beet farmers in particular, and on the sugar industry.

The sugar sector is an example of the extent of the WTO’s influence on the economies of individual States, and also on that of the EU as a whole. The Agriculture Committee has succeeded in moderating quite a few of the Commission’s proposals, and I think that the result is most acceptable. I hope that the final negotiations between the Council and the Commission will see a good deal more of the Agriculture Committee’s demands taken on board.

The cultivation of energy crops offers farmers at least some opportunity to find alternatives to sugar-beet growing and to promote non-food production – which is vital and also forward looking. Following the reform of the CAP, European agriculture has to undergo its next major reform very soon. We must nevertheless accept that we live in an interconnected world, and that stubborn insistence on the status quo is certainly not a viable alternative.

The Agriculture Committee is of the opinion that, in future, there must be the possibility of obliging the Council to wait for Parliament to take its decisions before taking its own decision. This was an exceptional situation, in view of which I support the procedure. I hope that, in the final reckoning, we shall continue to have beet farmers and an active, attractive sugar industry, in the future.

  Margrietus van den Berg (PSE). – (NL) Madam President, in November, the Council decided to reform the European sugar sector by reducing prices by 36% over four years, and paying compensation of more than EUR 7 billion to the European sugar sector. It is important that some of this compensation should go not only to the farmers and industry, but also to the workers who are likely to lose their jobs as a result of the reforms. They should not be overlooked, and I should like to hear the Commissioner commit to support for retraining them, thus allowing them to find appropriate employment.

I am behind the Council’s decision not to delay any longer free access for sugar from the least developed countries under ‘Everything But Arms’. This is about people for whom, certainly when prices plummet, sugar exports are of vital importance. We must deliver on our promises and open up our market in 2009; we have procrastinated long enough.

I regret the Council’s decision not to bite the bullet as far as abolishing C-sugar is concerned. Since C-sugar distorts the world market price, it would be better for us to look for alternative end uses for possible surpluses, such as energy production. I would like to ask the Commissioner if he can guarantee at this stage that C-sugar will be abolished. I can understand why you have decided to introduce a 25% regulation in order to counter triangular trade, but can you confirm that this investigation, if it reaches beyond 25%, is intended only to counter triangular trade and not to flag other issues? Can you confirm that it will not have a delaying effect?

Commissioner Mandelson said yesterday that it is true that we need 200 million if we are to be serious about helping the ACP countries. Mr Fruteau was right to say that 40 million is unacceptable. It is unclear where that money is to be found. It should be new and fresh funds. Can you promise that the Commission will in any event make every effort to find those 200 million per year and that this will not be at the expense of Category 4 development budget? The fact is that that really would be funding the poorest countries from their own pocket, and that is the wrong type of solidarity.

  Jan Mulder (ALDE). – (NL) Madam President, all we can say is that this debate is a bit too late in the day. The Commissioner, whom I would like to congratulate on the fact that the bulk of her ideas have been adopted by the Council, was tactful enough to say that Parliament had had a great deal of influence. Although I should like to congratulate Mr Fruteau on this, I realise that what we will decide in a resolution today or tomorrow will have little effect on the final outcome.

I too felt that the sugar reforms were necessary. We have come in for some criticism from the WTO panel; we now have a weapons agreement which we must adhere to and allow for. The farmers in the Member States are getting a raw deal, as are the farmers in the ACP countries. I agree with the many who stated that sugar will not be the key product for the ACP countries; just as important will be the energy production.

We have the technology – which is already being applied in Brazil and elsewhere – by means of which sugar cane is directly converted into alcohol. I would encourage the Commission to give the ACP countries maximum support in this process, for it would be preferable to use sugar cane for energy production in those countries, provided, that is, that they are in the tropics.

Another problem has meanwhile cropped up. If I have been reliably informed, the European market will soon be flooded with a surplus of some 2 million tonnes of sugar. That is because exports have dropped and the harvest has been good. There is still a large supply of intervention sugar and it looks like in the first year, the level of participation in the restructuring process will be lower than expected. I would like to put a quick question to the Commission. What does it intend to do in the short term about this surplus of 2 millions tonnes of sugar?

  Kartika Tamara Liotard (GUE/NGL). – (NL) Madam President, Commissioner, the sugar reform, as it is currently before us, will be pernicious to poor developing countries and ACP countries that are now losing their access to the market or are given lower prices for their products. As far as I am concerned, every agricultural reform that harms developing countries is a bad one.

This reform also deals a lethal blow to the incomes of thousands of farmers and workers in the sugar industry, and the absence of a proper social plan to mitigate it turns this into a worthless exercise.

Finally, this reform does not benefit the European taxpayer in any way because it is budget-neutral. Given these three considerations, we can sum this reform up as a disaster. There is no question that the European sugar policy should be reformed, but not in a way from which only major food producers benefit.

  Andrzej Tomasz Zapałowski (IND/DEM).  – (PL) Madam President, today’s debate has raised many questions, in particular with regard to the impact the reform will have on the new Member States. The question we should be asking is whether something extraordinary has happened to the world’s sugar trade or sugar production in the two years since the EU underwent its last enlargement to justify such a sudden change in sugar policy, and the answer to this question is ‘no’.

I mention this because the effects of this reform will hit the new Member States hardest. It is not uncommon for farmers in these countries to have invested all their savings in their farms, even though they have been treated unfairly. I would remind the House that farmers in the old EU Member States receive three times more in land subsidies than those in the new Member States. This reform has no doubt been several years in the making, which means that the public in the new Member States was intentionally misled, or even deceived, at the time of accession.

Implementation of this reform will be further proof that the idea of European solidarity and genuine assistance for the new Member States is an illusion. Genuine assistance means giving the new Member States a real chance to develop their economies, rather than granting them subsidies on a short-term basis. One or even several countries can be outvoted, but the Polish public is opposed to a reform of this kind, and objects to being constantly cheated. I too would be happy to do without an EU that is run along these lines.

  Gintaras Didžiokas (UEN). – (LT) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, first, I would like to thank the rapporteur Mr Fruteau for his accomplished work of such considerable scope. Sugar has always been and, I believe, will remain a strategic product. So the ongoing struggles in relation to the rules and regulations of sugar production and trade are not accidental.

We must not forget that a considerable part of the EU economy is related to this product, from agriculture to industry, with people working in all the sectors. These people create a large part of the GDP; they earn their livings, provide for their families and raise children. Thus, in pursuing the reforms, we have no right to disregard those people, our citizens. We cannot ignore their interests or allow any threat to their employment and income. And that is exactly the threat that I see.

It is a pity that whilst submitting the proposal, the Commission paid little regard to the opinion submitted by the European Parliament. The Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development and the rapporteur tried to improve the proposal, but I am not sure they fully succeeded. I tend to think that the reform is much more beneficial to developing countries and the transnational companies hiding behind them, or large businesses, rather than to the most vulnerable circle of the EU community, that is, farmers, factory workers, and in general, residents of the rural areas. Therefore, in my opinion, the submitted proposal, even though largely improved by the Agriculture Committee, is inappropriate, unfair and insensitive; and it will strike hard at millions of rural residents who already live poorly as it is.

  President. Mr Didžiokas, you are talking too quickly, and reading out your speeches too quickly, and you are not the only one. The interpreters cannot keep up with you, and so time is wasted. It will be of much greater benefit to what you want to convey if you speak either more slowly or without a prepared speech.

  Andreas Mölzer (NI). – (DE) Madam President, as we know, from as early as 1968, Europe has sought to ensure that it is able to meet its own sugar needs; that is to say, that it is in a position to satisfy demand by means of its own production wherever possible. As with many good intentions, this went wrong along the way and undoubtedly began to constitute a problem.

Our sugar-beet farmers simply do not stand a chance of competing with the hot climate and low wages of the tropics – although it has to be said, of course, that our sugar is not produced using either slash-and-burn or child labour, nor is it transported halfway round the world, which undoubtedly protects the environment, too.

Allowing beet farmers to produce ever greater surpluses and sell them on the world market at subsidised prices, so to speak, and thus making them competitors to all of those who could actually produce sugar far more cheaply, created a system that was bound to collapse sooner or later. Yet instead of slow, sensitive regulatory intervention to avert the worst-case scenario, the response was to look the other way for decades.

The last straw seems to have been the agreement with ACP countries on the re-export of their sugar, which was subsidised to the tune of EUR 800 million. This is a most peculiar kind of development aid. Previously, subsidised EU sugar exports were regarded as immoral; now they are illegal.

We shall have to work hard, therefore, to ensure that our farmers, our sugar factories and the workers in these factories emerge unscathed, as far as possible, from this mess of our own making.

  President. The debate is suspended until 9 p.m.

IN THE CHAIR: MR DOS SANTOS
Vice-President