Verbatim report of proceedings

Tuesday, 11 September 2012 - Strasbourg

22. Current management of the sugar sector (debate)

  President. – The next item is the debate on:

- the oral question to the Commission by James Nicholson and Marina Yannakoudakis, on behalf of the European Conservatives and Reformists Group, on the current management of the sugar sector (O-000114/2012 - B7-0353/2012),

- the oral question to the Commission by George Lyon, Britta Reimers, Sarah Ludford, Ramon Tremosa i Balcells and Marielle de Sarnez, on behalf of the Group of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe, on the current management of the sugar sector (O-000116/2012 - B7-0354/2012),

- the oral question to the Commission by Luis Manuel Capoulas Santos, on behalf of the Group of the Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats in the European Parliament, on the current management of the sugar sector (O-000143/2012 - B7-0359/2012), and

- the oral question to the Commission by Patrick Le Hyaric, Alfreds Rubiks, João Ferreira and Nikolaos Chountis, on behalf of the Confederal Group of the European United Left – Nordic Green Left, on the current management of the sugar sector (O-000152/2012 - B7-0361/2012).

  Marina Yannakoudakis, author. – Mr President, I would like to say to Commissioner Reding that every time we ask the Commission this question, we always get the same answer. We are told that that there is no problem, yet cane refiners throughout the EU are running below capacity. Factories are closing their doors for several days a week, and this means that jobs are lost.

The Commission even showed us a copy of a letter from a French cane refiner telling it that cane supplies were chronically inadequate, whilst at the same time stating that the system should remain as it is. What the Commission failed to mention, or notice, was that the refinery was owned by a beet producer, thus their desire to keep the status quo.

When the Commission admits there is a problem, we are told that it is only a British problem, yet 62 MEPs from 11 Member States wrote to the Agriculture Commissioner asking for changes to be made to the sugar regime. Jobs are at risk, not only in the UK, but across Europe, especially in Portugal, Bulgaria and Romania. The Commission knows there is a problem; we know there is a problem. We must act now to create a level playing field in this industry.

Commissioner, you are not responsible for agriculture but for citizenship. It is our job to protect our citizens, those whose jobs are under threat and those who are paying more at the supermarket each week. The price of sugar in the EU is 46% more than in the rest of the world.

All the Commission needs to do is to look at the source of the sugar supply and fix it. If the Commission refuses to do that now, it will have let down the very people it is here to serve, and Europe will lose a key manufacturing industry.

  George Lyon, author. – Mr President, with due respect to the Commissioner, I would have hoped that the Agricultural Commissioner might have been here tonight to answer our questions but I am sure the Commissioner here will do a very good job in trying to reply.

Our debate tonight is focused on the Commission’s management of the EU sugar market regime following the reforms of 2006. According to our cane refiners, and Tate & Lyle in particular, they claim that the Commission forecast in 2006 of 3.5 million tonnes of cane imports to the EU from the ACP countries has failed to materialise, and the Commission so far has refused to allow in enough tariff-free imports from other countries, such as Brazil, to make up the difference.

They claim this has led to rocketing raw material costs and reduced throughput in their factories by up to 40%, which is driving up costs and making them uncompetitive against beet producers in the EU market. They argue that unless the Commission takes action to allow more raw material into the EU market, sugar refiners are going to close and jobs in many EU countries will be lost. They say all they want is fair competition and a level playing field, and it is the Commission’s actions that are preventing that from happening.

We also have the counter-arguments from the beet growers, who claim the market is balanced, and that the Commission forecast of 3.5 million tonnes of imports has materialised, as it includes both raw and white sugar, and the EU must not allow imports of cane from Brazil as it would undermine the preferred suppliers in the ACP countries. They also claim that it is the failure of the cane sector to reconstruct and rationalise after the 2006 reform that is the real root cause of the problem.

So the question is: who is right and what action needs to be taken? There is no doubt in my mind that there is a real problem in the cane sector and I want to hear from the Commissioner here tonight what action she is going to take to ensure there is a level playing field for both beet and cane processors.

  Claude Moraes (S&D), Blue-card question to Marina Yannakoudakis. – Mr President, I have a major sugar refinery in my constituency of London, as does Ms Yannakoudakis, and I would like to ask her a question along these lines. There have been a number of exceptional measures in the last two years to relieve the shortage of sugar imports. Were the duties for releasing sugar into the EU market charged at the same value for all sectors?

  Marina Yannakoudakis (ECR), Blue-card answer. – In the last two marketing years, the duty charged for beet and isoglucose sectors was at an average of EUR 75 per tonne for the 1.2 million tonnes of extra supply.

Now for raw sugar, less than 900 000 tonnes has been imported and the average duty charged was, I believe, EUR 183 per tonne.

(The speaker agreed to take a blue-card question under Rule 149(8))

  Marc Tarabella (S&D), Blue-card question. – (FR) Ms Yannakoudakis, let me say how shocked I am at your unwarranted attack against the Commission. If I understand you correctly, faced with the difficult situation in the refinery sector, you are concerned because there will be job losses.

However, in 2006, and this is the reason for my question so contradict me if I am wrong, I did not hear you getting concerned about job losses in the sugar industry. Yet, the 2006 reform led to the restructuring of a whole series of companies. Some were not restructured and now you are defending them.

What I would like to know then is whether you practise double standards: you did not express your disapproval of the restructuring a few years ago, and yet today you react under pressure from very influential lobbies.

  Marina Yannakoudakis (ECR), Blue-card answer. – No, we are not attacking anyone. All that we are stating is that we want a level playing field. We are talking about European jobs.

The 2006 legislation was brought in by the EU. At the time, it could have been reasonable and it probably did work, but companies and institutions and the EU should move forward as situations change. The situation has changed. The sugar is not enough for these refineries and they are having to shut down for certain days a week. That is a fact.

If we do not act, there is a chance that 4 500 European jobs will be lost. I am talking about jobs, not only in the UK, where we are only talking about 90 jobs at the moment, but in countries such as Portugal which are suffering under the economic recession. This is not a time to play politics.

(The speaker agreed to take a blue-card question under Rule 149(8))

  Maria do Céu Patrão Neves (PPE), Blue-card question. – (PT) Given what I am hearing, I have a question that I must ask. We have an industry that has no raw materials with which to work. In 2006, the Commission forecast the possibility of importing some 3.3 million tonnes. Today, it is forecasting ... moreover, this to justify the change ... today, it is forecasting only 1.8 million tonnes. I should like to ask: is even an amount as small as this, which is not even enough for our industry, assured? That is the real issue in the Chamber at the moment.

  Marina Yannakoudakis (ECR), Blue-card answer. – Mr President, I totally agree with the Member. That is our problem and that is what we are trying to figure out now. That is why we are trying to act now.

The chances of a tangible increase in imports from preferential supplies is low. That is why the Commission has to come forward with a plan B at this time to suit the situation.

  Luis Manuel Capoulas Santos, author. – (PT) Mr President, I should like to begin by thanking the Commissioner for Agriculture and Rural Development for the openness and availability for dialogue that he has been displaying to date in response to the many initiatives that we in Parliament have been conducting in this regard. However, Commissioner, dialogue is not enough if it does not produce results, which have been lacking up to now, unfortunately. Is it or is not true, Commissioner, that Europe’s sugar refineries have found it harder and harder to access the raw materials for processing since the reform of the sugar sector in 2006? Is it or is it not true that the forecasts made in 2005 for supply to the industry were overestimated and are far from being realised, despite the conclusion of new trade agreements with other countries?

Obviously, I can accept any argument aimed at defending European producers, but that is exactly what this is about. In some European countries, such as mine, Portugal, we have industry and jobs totally dependent on access, under reasonable conditions, to cane sugar for refining. This is not a situation that we can analyse coldly and say to industry that this is merely a problem of the market that should be resolved by it.

We all know that economic operators make decisions on the basis of what the European regulator announces and forecasts. It is also true that, in this case, the Commission’s forecasts were far from accurate. I therefore call on the Commission to make the necessary decisions, ensuring balanced operations between sectors that supply the European sugar market. This is also with a view to ensuring that the 4 500 jobs in Europe’s sugar-refining industry, which are so important in these times of economic and financial crisis, are not lost.

  Alfreds Rubiks, author. – (LV) Mr President, the essence of the problem is that the European Union, as a result of the sugar production reform, has turned from a sugar exporter into a sugar importer. Many experts and producers believe the reason for that is largely the implemented quota system, which led to the closing of many sugar factories – including all three sugar factories in my country, Latvia.

Farmers and sugar producers are demanding that sugar production be restored in Latvia, but the quota system does not allow it. Elimination of the quota system is demanded also by the Coalition of Industrial Sugar Users in Germany in a letter addressed to me, adding that new and complex methods are not necessary for regulation of the sugar market, but rather that the sugar quotas should be lifted.

By implementing quotas, sugar production in Europe was reduced to 80% of the necessary amount. It is stated in Article 60 of the Council’s CAP that the quota system must be maintained until 2020, and it is planned to regulate the amount of sugar with lower prices, but that is not realistic, as the costs per hectare are almost the same whether the sugar beet harvest is rich or poor. Extension of the quota periods will continue making the planning of procurement more difficult for industrial sugar users, increase consumer prices, as well as create obstacles to competitiveness in the global market. Such policy entails poor growth opportunities for the industry.

In my opinion, regional production should be preserved, and additionally the production of sugar that will compete in the global market beyond the European Union should be allowed. That would solve many problems.

  Viviane Reding, Vice-President of the Commission. – (FR) Mr President, I will try to answer parliamentary questions on behalf of my colleague, Mr Cioloş.

You will be aware that the reform of the common market organisation for sugar (CMO) dates back to November 2005, and that the aim of this reform was to increase the competitiveness of the EU sugar sector. The sugar beet sector suffered with the closure of many factories while, at the same time, the refined cane sugar sector was given a budget of EUR 150 million to enable it to become more competitive. This reform also abolished the difference between traditional refiners and sugar refiners, with a transitional period of three years ending in 2009. Meanwhile, the European Union granted duty-free access to African, Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) and ‘Everything but Arms’ (EBA) countries, but with a safeguard clause set to be triggered when imports exceeded 3.5 million tonnes, which includes 1.6 million tonnes for ACP countries which were not least developed countries (LDC). In 2005, a World Trade Organisation (WTO) panel restricted exports to 1.35 million tonnes.

Following the sugar reform, the sugar quota fell to the level of 13.3 million tonnes compared to a sugar quota of 17.4 million tonnes in 2004-2005. As a result, 41% of factories were closed. Meanwhile, refining capacities increased by more than 1.5 million tonnes in the European Union of 27 and so-called ‘traditional’ refiners decided to increase their capacity to 1.15 million tonnes over the past five years.

Current imports are based on preferential agreements with the ACP countries and the least developed countries to the tune of 1.8 million tonnes this year, which, with 670 000 tonnes from Brazil, 380 000 tonnes from the Balkans and 400 000 tonnes from reduced-rate auctions, give a total of 3.2 million tonnes for the current year. For the next year, quotas of nearly 300 000 tonnes have been allocated to Central and South America and 400 000 tonnes of sugar are imported annually in the form of processed products.

2009-2010 was not a typical year. World prices were higher than prices in the European Union, which had not been seen for 50 years. ACP countries therefore preferred to sell their domestic goods on the world market or on the domestic market, and they did not deliver the quantities specified for the European Union. Market balance in the EU was under threat for our consumers. The 2005 reform clearly states that it is only in this instance that the Commission is allowed to take action. To balance the market, the Commission has authorised imports during 2010-2011 and 2011-2012 under preferential conditions and at discounts on the EU quota-free sugar market. This action is balanced, both in terms of volume and conditions. In total, 2.35 million tonnes of extra sugar were placed on the EU market, 1.25 million tonnes of which were imports.

It is true that some refiners are complaining about not enough sugar being available, and some of you are also raising this issue. What is it about then?

The first thing to point out is that this view is not universally shared by European refiners.

The second thing is: what do the import figures tell us? Before the 2005 reform, imports stood at 2.3 million tonnes. Since the reform, they have risen. To say then that there is less imported sugar and that this is why some companies are having problems bears no relation to reality.

What is the real problem, then? A more detailed analysis of the situation for each Member State and for each refining company shows that the refining industry in Europe has entered the market economy and has been opened to competition, as was intended by the 2005 reform. Competition between refiners is now a reality. Some Member States and some refiners have increased their refining capacity by securing their supplies from third countries. For other refiners, we see that supply volumes have dropped off since the reform, while total European imports have grown. It is therefore simply a problem of private enterprise business strategy.

Ladies and gentlemen, the European refining sector entered the market economy as a result of the 2005 reform, after a transition period that ended in 2009. This market-oriented approach was what was wanted and there is no turning back for us now.

The Commission’s job is to balance the EU sugar market. Sugar imports have risen dramatically since 2006. They reached a historical high of 4 million tonnes in 2011. Imports from ACP countries have also followed this trend. If ACP countries decide to export to the EU sugar refined by them, not only must we accept it; we must also acknowledge that it contributes to the development of their economies. The difficulties reported by a small number of refining companies have nothing to do with a shortage of sugar. They are to do with greater competition between European refiners, with a sharp increase in the production capacity of refiners. This explains why some plants are not operating at full capacity.

The main objective of the sugar reform was to increase competitiveness, on a sustainable basis, and the market-oriented approach of the EU sugar industry. The EU has become a net importer of sugar, whereas before it was a key net exporter. This reform has therefore been successful as it has done away with structural surplus production of sugar.

The current sugar market regime is valid until 30 September 2015. In October 2011, the Commission presented its proposal for the future functioning of the sugar regime in the European Union, which provides for the abolition of production quotas. This is currently under discussion with the European Parliament and other European institutions.

On behalf of Mr Cioloş, I would urge you to take an active part in this debate on the CAP post-2013 and the future of the quota system.

  Albert Deß, on behalf of the PPE Group. – (DE) Mr President, Ms Reding, ladies and gentlemen, a secure supply of sugar for the European market must be the top priority of European sugar policy. The reform of the sugar regime in 2006 made the European Union dependent on imports, at least in part. Ms Reding has just mentioned the figures. The result of the reform is that imports amounting to 15% of consumption are now needed on a permanent basis. However, after the imports fell below expected levels because of poor harvests in some important sugar producing countries and the resulting rise in world market prices, the Commission has, in my opinion, taken the right measures. It has made importing additional amounts of sugar easier. More than 500 000 tonnes have been imported without duty being paid. It has also enabled domestic producers of sugar and isoglucose to sell part of their non-quota production on the food market. The amount in this case is also 500 000 tonnes.

Against this background, it is clear that the Commission has achieved the balance referred to in the questions. I very much support what Ms Reding has said in this respect. The sugar market regime has the necessary instruments to secure the supply and to guarantee a fair balance across the different interests. The risk of redundancies has been mentioned, in particular, by the first speaker, and I would like to refer to what Mr Tarabella said. Thousands of jobs were lost during the reform of the sugar regime. In my constituency in the Upper Palatinate area of Germany, one of the oldest sugar refineries in Europe was closed with the loss of hundreds of jobs. Our goal must not be to ensure that every single job is secure, despite the fact that I regret every redundancy. Instead, we must ensure that there is a balance. I believe it will be good for the sugar regime reform to be extended until 2020.

(The speaker agreed to take a blue-card question under Rule 149(8))

  Sarah Ludford (ALDE), Blue-card question. – Mr Dess, you referred to the problems being from high world prices for sugar. Do you accept that EU sugar prices are, in fact, 46% higher than the world price, having risen nearly 50% since the Commission first recognised the EU sugar crisis in December 2010? EU sugar prices are rising while world prices are actually falling, so it is not a problem of high world prices.

Secondly, do you accept that there has been a perverse incentive for beet processors to bid up the price of raw cane sugar, forcing traditional refiners out of business while rapidly increasing the profits on their sugar beet sales by pushing white sugar prices higher? That is why white sugar prices are higher.

  Albert Deß (PPE), Blue-card answer. – (DE) Thank you, Ms Ludford. In the past, we had excessively high sugar prices in Europe. During the reform of the sugar regime in 2006 and also beforehand, sugar beet prices in Europe fell by around 40%. This meant that sugar beet producers suffered massive cuts. There have been major fluctuations in prices on the world market. There was a time when sugar was much more expensive on the world market than in Germany. At that point, none of the African, Caribbean and Pacific states were supplying Europe. The problem was that there were inconsistencies. Ms Ludford, if we in Europe abolish the sugar regime, we will be even more exposed to fluctuations in prices and European consumers will have to pay a bitter price.

  Marc Tarabella, on behalf of the S&D Group. – (FR) Mr President, Commissioner, I have already had the opportunity to speak using my blue card, so I am surprised at the wording of the question. I think that it has been dictated by certain private interests of the big refiners, and I cannot condone this wording or this accusation put to the Commission. Ms Reding gave us a very good explanation of how the Commission wanted to ensure an adequate supply of sugar to consumers. It has managed to maintain this balance by monitoring the market and acting promptly.

For the future, I advocate quota adjustments. Creating new jobs is, of course, possible – because this, I would say, is a concern that we all have – and could be done by adjusting quotas upwards in response to the market. But more importantly, I think it would be helpful, in future, to try to control production collectively because, as we know, whatever the production may be, a lack of production control leads to spiralling costs, with erratic prices, which are the scourge of farmers. And, for sugar, as with other materials, it is essential that production is controlled to respond to the market. In any case, I hope that in the future, these quotas will be adjusted in line with market realities in order to help revive European industry and European producers that little bit more.

  Britta Reimers, on behalf of the ALDE Group. – (DE) Mr President, Ms Reding, ladies and gentlemen, the last reform of the sugar regime was a very positive development and the industry adapted to the market as a result.

However, the complaints from all sides show that we need to go further and that we must continue to develop the sugar market, because the Commission’s forecasts were not accurate. The African, Caribbean and Pacific States have not been supplying Europe with sugar. Instead, they have sold it to other countries, because markets all over the world have changed. They have undergone huge changes in recent years, but not in the way that was predicted. Demand has grown in many third countries and we were not able to foresee this. This means that demand for sugar has increased all over the world and, therefore, that there have been reductions in supplies to the European market.

The problem is that sugar is not the only product of the agricultural industry, and so farmers have also had to adapt increasingly to the requirements of the market. They are considering alternative crops. For example, in my area of Germany, energy crops are being cultivated and they are genuine competitors for sugar beet.

In the course of the market reform, we should discuss whether it is time to abolish the quota regulations that apply to the sugar market and to give it more freedom in future.

  James Nicholson, on behalf of the ECR Group. – Mr President, the hour may be late but quite clearly we have a very good debate going here in this House tonight by a small number of people, which shows you the importance of this topic. I think it is a very timely debate and I congratulate my colleagues on bringing this to the floor of the House.

Regarding the success of the reform of the sugar regime, I think the introduction of quotas back in 2006 has been proved very wrong. The processing plants were closed down across Europe. We are now in a situation where we are a net importer of sugar, as has been pointed out here tonight, and that surely, in my opinion, is totally unacceptable.

We should also address the issue of equality between different types of sugar production; for example, the sugar cane refining industry is struggling at the moment to access adequate raw materials due to restrictions, no matter what we say. Who can supply the industry in view of the punitive tariffs that are being experienced at the moment? I would urge the Commission to find a solution to the problem, which is putting many jobs at risk throughout Europe.

  John Stuart Agnew, on behalf of the EFD Group. – Mr President, we have to compare what the Commission is saying about their wider policy aims on employment, social living conditions and trade, and what they are saying about sugar.

Recently, both President Barroso of the Commission and President Van Rompuy spoke at the Jobs for Europe conference. Each acknowledged the extreme seriousness of unemployment in EU Member States. However, I would wager a bag of sugar that neither of them mentioned the fact that Iceland, Norway and Switzerland have higher employment rates than any EU state, even the mighty Germany. This little booklet tells you all about it.

Their words about employment are not matched by their actions, one of which is to raise tariffs against imported raw sugar cane for which there is a ready market. This restriction of supply is a direct cause of lost jobs in the sugar cane refining sector.

What twists the knife here is that these tariffs are based on hopelessly inaccurate sugar forecasts made by the Commission in 2005. If the Commission wished to keep food affordable and to keep individuals out of poverty, why enforce a policy that will make sugar more expensive?

There is another Commissioner who also has been caught with his fingers in the sugar bowl. This is Mr De Gucht. He recently enthused about the importance of deepening the EU’s trade with third countries. He informed us that this had the potential to increase the GDP of the EU by the equivalent output of a country the size of Denmark or Austria.

Restricting sugar imports from overseas countries does seem a strange way to increase trade with them. The Commission’s favourite response when confronted like this is to point to the bilateral trade negotiations that they are conducting with countries in Central America, and assuming that the sugar trade that results from this deal will compensate for the shortfall from the ACP and the less-developed countries.

However, 300 000 tonnes of new sugar can never replace 1.5 million lost tonnes of traditional sugar and the sooner the Commission faces up to this, the better for all concerned.

Our UK House of Lords highlighted this very point last week in their enquiry into the EU sugar regime. The fact that they should even deem such an inquiry necessary should ring alarm bells, and I hope that their very critical conclusion will force the Commissioners to wake up and smell the cane.

  Marina Yannakoudakis (ECR), Blue-card question to James Nicholson. – Unfortunately, I have a lot of unanswered questions. It is not Commissioner Reding’s fault that she has had to read a speech, so I am going to ask my colleague, Mr Nicholson, who is in agriculture.

A few weeks ago, we had a meeting with Commissioner Cioloş and we asked him to set up a taskforce since there is such a varied debate. Have you heard anything more? Will this be a positive way forward?

  James Nicholson (ECR), Blue-card answer. – Mr President, it is a great pleasure to be speaking immediately after Mr Agnew who today remonstrated with me because I was not pronouncing his name properly, but I think that I have got it right tonight.

I can say to Ms Yannakoudakis that I have heard nothing since that but I certainly think that that will be one of the positive ways forward because we cannot look back; we have to look forward. We cannot look to the mistakes which were made in the past. We have to look to the future.

  João Ferreira, on behalf of the GUE/NGL Group. – (PT) Mr President, Commissioner, the last reform of the sugar sector wrecked Portugal’s sugar beet production sector. After major investment that ensured provision of a significant proportion of national sugar consumption, the country has become almost entirely dependent on imports of cane sugar, and is subject to the availability and price constraints of the international market in this raw material. The effects have been very visible in recent campaigns. Under these new conditions, investments made by a number of refinery-owning companies have now run into problems with a lack of the raw material, which compromises their ability to work at full capacity.

The Commission is partly responsible for this situation and cannot ignore or obscure that fact. The auctions of import licences did not meet the refineries’ needs. In this context, it is essential to reinstate quotas, so as to secure each country’s right to restore its sugar beet production capacity and then step it up to its full potential. Meanwhile, however, in the short term, we also need to resolve the shortfall in imports of cane sugar under conditions that enable refineries to go back to full capacity.

  Dimitar Stoyanov (NI). – (BG) Mr President, Ms Reding, please go to Commissioner Cioloş who has written this lengthy speech you read to us and tell him to stop playing games with us because the jobs of thousands of people are at stake in these games, and if they are lost, this means that thousands more people in the European Union will face hunger, misery and poverty.

You cannot come here and say that things have gotten better because they are based on the market principle when half of the industry has been placed under protection, while the other half has been crushed. This is not a market principle. On the contrary, it is precisely because there is no market principle that I and my colleagues have come here, and only the tone and emotion of this debate we are holding at 23.30 can show you how important this actually is. It is precisely because there is no market principle that you have come here – so we can ask the Commission questions.

So, stop messing us about and take the problem seriously because two months ago, there were 30 of us and now there are 60 – just think how many there will be tomorrow.

(The speaker agreed to take a blue-card question under Rule 149(8))

  Michel Dantin (PPE), Blue-card question. – (FR) Mr President, I would just like Mr Stoyanov to explain to us where the thousands of lost or potentially lost jobs are that he is talking about?

  Dimitar Stoyanov (NI), Blue-card answer. – (BG) Fellow Member, the point is, as we understood from what Members who spoke before us said, that the problem is found in 11 different EU Member States, starting from one of the southernmost – my Bulgaria, onto Mr Cioloş’ own country – Romania, through Portugal, Italy and the United Kingdom, and reaching all the way to Finland.

This is a problem that starts from the European Union’s southernmost border and reaches its northernmost border. Four and a half thousand jobs are at stake there, with an unknown number of people from each family. This comes to tens of thousands of people who make a living from this industry.

  Michel Dantin (PPE). – (FR) Mr President, the 2006 reform was supposed to improve the competitiveness of the sugar beet sector in Europe. This reform was carried out at great sacrifice in terms of men and land. Factories were closed. Whole areas of land had to abandon beet production. Cane sugar refiners are now calling for the suspension of tariffs on sugar without any trade negotiation. Increased imports of cane sugar from other third countries would undermine the preferences granted to our traditional partners in developing countries and could halt investments in these countries.

The European Union sugar market is totally open. As far as I am concerned, any delay in investments in African, Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) countries and the least developed countries (LDCs) cannot justify the refiners’ demand to disregard them. As a rapporteur for this House on the common market organisation (CMO) in the reform of the common agricultural policy (CAP), the ACP countries that I have encountered have explicitly asked me to keep the system in place today.

Ladies and gentlemen, this House has already, on a number of occasions, had discussions, regarding, in particular, the Dess report in July 2011 and Resolution No 2010/2110, passed in March 2011. Yes, we must defend jobs. However, under the pretext of defending dozens of industrial jobs, do we need to have more people abandoning our lands with the removal of European producers? For three years now, is it not the case that our Parliament has, all too often, affirmed and reaffirmed its determination to defend our food self-sufficiency and to promote our agriculture as much as possible?

  Sarah Ludford (ALDE). – Mr President, Vice-President Reding is not the only person present who rarely ventures into agriculture. The 2006 reform promised to guarantee supplies, and has clearly not delivered for traditional cane refiners. The sector is shedding jobs. I would like to say to Mr Dantin that nearly 1 000 jobs are imperilled in my constituency alone, and factories face the risk of closure.

Meanwhile, beet refiners pocketed EUR 5 billion of aid in 2006 – compared to EUR 150 million for cane refiners – and use a cross subsidy to muscle into refining. They are now creaming off profits since the market is oligopolistic rather than competitive.

Raw cane supply has failed to rise, not because preferential suppliers sold elsewhere, but because they did not expand as expected. Some blame should be attached to the Commission’s bureaucracy for its lack of efficiency in administering aid. Meanwhile, imports from Brazil or Thailand face big tariffs: normally EUR 339, and an average of EUR 183 even under special measures.

The treatment of traditional cane refiners is deeply unfair, and it is workers and consumers who are suffering. Frankly, the Agriculture Commissioner seems prejudiced, stubbornly prejudiced, against them all.

  Jacek Włosowicz (EFD). – (PL) Mr President, Commissioner, current policy on regulating the sugar market in Europe has been a disaster. We pay much more for sugar than we did a few years ago. Production in some European Union Member States has been destroyed. Poland provides a clear example of this. Cultivation of sugar beet has been totally discontinued in certain areas that were traditional producers, for example, in the Kazimierz District in the Świętokrzyskie Region. One could describe this as the destruction of this agricultural sector. This has increased unemployment in these areas and, instead of being an exporter, Poland now has to import over 300 000 tonnes of sugar per annum. Production has fallen by 600 000 tonnes.

The present proposals from the Commission go in the opposite direction. Immediate market liberalisation is now being proposed. I would therefore ask: does the Commission not see that the effect of this could be to strengthen the position of market leaders while totally destroying small-scale producers? Would it not be sensible to abandon the present system in a gradual manner in order to avoid creating another shock in the market? Finally, would increasing present limits not be a better solution than immediate liberalisation?

  Younous Omarjee (GUE/NGL). – (FR) Mr President, Commissioner, in this debate on the sugar sector, I should like to draw your attention to the particular situation of the outermost regions, which, as you know, would have been hit hard by the 2005 reform had it not been for the introduction of a compensation scheme at national level. As you know, the cane sugar industries in these islands are particularly vulnerable and should be sheltered from the devastating effects that could be generated by the post-2013 reform and alignment with the rules required by the World Trade Organisation (WTO).

That is why I call on Parliament, the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development and the Commission to bear in mind the particular situation of the outermost regions. In Réunion Island, there were 13 sugar factories before 1950; just two are left now.

  Rareş-Lucian Niculescu (PPE). – (RO) Mr President, the problem with the sugar sector is much broader than the topics raised by the questions asked during today’s debate, and are not limited to cane sugar. Romania, for instance, provides just 20% of its consumption requirements from its own resources, which means beet grown and processed in the country, with production being limited by the quota system. The remaining 80% consumed is supplied by refining imported raw sugar or directly by importing white sugar.

In recent years, refineries in Romania, and other countries for that matter, have experienced major problems in terms of the supply of raw materials needed and of continuing to operate on the market. The imports of raw materials are strictly limited to certain sources, and only a small quantity can be purchased from efficient sources which can ensure a continuous supply. The Commission has been unable so far to come up with reliable proposals for ensuring that refineries are supplied in the medium and long term and allowing a minimum amount of planning for this activity. As a result, refineries are operating at only 60% of their capacity. Against this backdrop of underuse, refineries are inevitably ending up having to shut down.

We expect measures aimed at removing the restrictions on supplying raw materials caused by tariff and non-tariff barriers. These measures are needed as a matter of urgency if the EU wishes to continue with its own refining industry. Otherwise, we will continue with imports.

Catch-the-eye procedure

  Peter Jahr (PPE). – (DE) Mr President, of course, the best thing would be to have no regime for sugar beet. You know yourself that all quota regulations give rise to wastage. However, I accept the opinion of the majority in committee which is that we still cannot really trust the prices and the developments on the world market. Therefore, we will vote in favour of extending the quota regulations for sugar beet in committee. That is the right decision.

From my perspective, that brings us to the next point. If we recognise that there are three cornerstones of sugar production – firstly, and most importantly, sugar beet, and then isoglucose and finally imported sugar – then we in committee can, of course, together with the Commission, begin to deal with the question of imported sugar. This could be a solution for everyone which would help to ensure a certain amount of stability in this sector. However, I would like to reiterate that, of course, the best thing would be if we could get rid of quota regulations altogether, but we must extend them in the interests of our farmers.

  Jaroslav Paška (EFD). – (SK) Mr President, the fact that sugar was in short supply in some Member States and that its price rose out of all proportion due to international speculation permits us to conclude that the reform of sugar quotas in 2006 was a failure of European agricultural policy. The drop in sugar production meant that, in my country, all sugar refineries closed and thousands of their workers found themselves jobless.

It is therefore important that we are able to correct the errors of unsuccessful past decisions as soon as possible and change the current mechanisms causing the decline of food production in Europe. The Commission should react to changes in economic conditions more promptly and stimulate employment and promote economic growth through its actions.

This is a reason to review, without prejudices, the quota system currently in force so that it does not create imbalances and tensions in the internal market.

  Elena Băsescu (PPE). – (RO) Mr President, the reform of the sugar market, carried out by the EU in 2006 and 2007, has shown its limits. There has been a slump in production across Europe. Many Member States have ended up importing sugar after being net exporters several years ago. This is also the case for Romania, which is no longer able to meet domestic consumption requirements from domestic production output.

The future common agricultural policy will have to take into account these factors. The quota system needs to be adapted to the actual production, processing and consumption capacities of each state. The Commission will also need to ensure fair competition between the three models of sugar production. I am referring in this case to cane sugar refineries, which are experiencing major difficulties in terms of the provision of raw materials.

  Maria do Céu Patrão Neves (PPE), Blue-card question. – (PT) In light of such a serious situation in Romania, which is similar to that in Portugal, do you think we can actually afford to wait until the reform of the common agricultural policy and your report on the single common market organisation are complete for measures to intervene in the sector? Or do we really need immediate measures, even if they are provisional, to help the sector?

  Elena Băsescu (PPE). – (RO) I did not say that I would accept my colleague’s question. As you also mentioned, it is very late and we are extremely tired.

End of the catch-the-eye procedure

  Viviane Reding, Vice-President of the Commission. – (FR) Mr President, this debate clearly shows that there is a divide between, on the one hand, the beet producers, and, on the other, the refiners of imported cane sugar. Following the reform of 2005, the former made the necessary, often painful, adjustments and became much more competitive.

Those who are now complaining are those who have yet to make these adjustments. They should, however, bow to the competition because these are the rules that we have agreed – and by ‘we’, I mean the Commission, Parliament and the Council.

Rest assured that the Commission will take all the necessary measures to ensure that the EU has a sufficient supply. In 2005, imports amounted to 2.3 million tonnes; today, they are between 2.5 and 3.1 million tonnes.

  President. – The debate is closed.

Written statements (Rule 149)

  Mariya Gabriel (PPE), in writing. – (BG) It is a fact that, as a result of the reforms implemented ever since 2007, my country – Bulgaria – has almost completely stopped producing sugar and has become an importer of raw sugar which is refined, with a small part exported and the rest remaining for domestic consumption. The country has a national quota only for the production of isoglucose – our sugar beet quota is closed. Six approved ‘permanent refiners’ of raw cane sugar and one company producing isoglucose are operating on the territory of Bulgaria. The Bulgarian sugar refineries run at low capacities because they do not have enough raw sugar to refine due to the low levels of raw material imported from third countries enjoying preferential agreements. The production of sugar and confectionery declined in the 2005-2011 period, while the prices of the products made, including refined sugar, increased. Given the restrictions on the maximum price of exported sugar, producers make their profits primarily from the surcharge on sugar for domestic consumption. Therefore, I believe that it is necessary to review the sugar production control mechanisms and find a balanced approach to combine the three models of production in a competitive environment. I congratulate colleagues on their actions and will join them in their attempt to achieve greater fairness in the EU’s sugar sector.

  Ivari Padar (S&D), in writing. – (ET) I support the question raised by my fellow Members concerning the distortions of competition arising from the sugar reform, which came into effect in 2006, while a significant amount of funding has been allocated to this reform. It has not, however, brought much benefit to producers or consumers. My fellow Members have referred to significant distortions of competition in the market, which should be one of the most important foundations of the European economy. The end consumer also suffers: in a small market such as Estonia, sugar is imported at world market prices, which are very high for our consumers. I would also like to know what the European Commission plans to do about the distortions of competition, shortages and high prices resulting from the sugar reform.