Common Market Organization for Sugar

Last updated

The Common Market Organization for Sugar regulates the sugar market in the European Union. For a long time, it was also known as the EU sugar quota system, after its most notable aspect. The sugar production quotas were in place from 1968 to 2017. Before ending the system the quota system, a thorough restructuring of the sugar production sector took place between 2006 and 2010. What now remains of the Common Market Organization is a much looser regulation.

Contents

The Treaty of Rome established the European Economic Community on 1 January 1958. It set common goals for the signatories and created: institutions, a common market, a customs union, and joint policies. [1]

One of the joint policies that the Treaty of Rome created was the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP). The CAP was meant to allow the intended extension of the internal market to agricultural products. [2] In summary, the goals of the CAP were: increasing agricultural productivity; ensuring a fair rural standard of living; stabilizing markets; ensuring availability of products; and ensuring reasonable prices. [3] This could be done by encouraging agricultural production with remunerative and stable prices for farmers. [4]

In order to attain the objectives of the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP), common market organisations (CMO's) were created. [5] [6] One of the up to 21 CMO's that existed up to 2007, was the CMO for sugar, which introduced the EU sugar quota system. In 2007 the separate CMO's would become a single CMO.

Creating an internal market for sugar (1968)

Huge differences in productivity

An internal market for sugar requires an internal market price for sugar beet, raw sugar and refined sugar (a.k.a. white sugar). However, in 1958, the sugar markets of the member states were very regulated and protected. There were very big differences in productivity of farmers and sugar producers. In some member states, the production of refined sugar was so inefficient that in 1968, their factories produced at a price triple the world market price. [7]

Intervention price, quotas, import regulation and export subsidies

The essential features of the sugar quota system were: intervention prices, quotas, tariffs and export subsidies. [8]

Most of the system was paid for by the European consumers. These paid a substantially above market price for sugar. [8] As most sugar was used by industry, [9] the total price paid for the system was far less notable than the increased price that the consumer paid for a package of white sugar.

Intervention price

The intervention price was a main instrument of market regulation by the European Community. It simply meant that as soon as a market price fell below a certain threshold, intervention agencies bought surplus commodities. [7]

The support prices were (high) guaranteed minimum prices for sugar beet, raw sugar and white sugar. (The raw cane sugar that the EEC imported to support certain countries was also bought at an above market prices).

In order to meet the goals of the CAP, the interventions prices for sugar were so high that even the least efficient producers could make an income. [7]

From 2001 to June 2006, the support prices were as follows: [10]

The actual wholesale prices were usually well above the intervention prices, which were in turn were normally well above world market prices. Intervention prices in Finland, Ireland, Portugal, the UK, Spain, Greece and Italy were somewhat higher.

The quotas

Quotas were necessary because the regulation as a whole led to internal market prices way above the world market price. Without some limit on production, the most efficient producers would use their profits to increase production. Several quotas were to prevent the intervention price from leading to overproduction. [11]

The quotas were determined based on the desired sugar production of each of the European Community member states, which was close to their beet sugar consumption. Each member state then allocated its national quota to sugar beet factories on its territory. These factories then converted their share in delivery rights for growers. [11]

These quotas were divided into A and B quotas. The A quota was intended to equal domestic consumption. [7] The smaller B quota was a safety margin to guarantee that enough would be produced for domestic consumption. Excess A and B sugar was exported with subsidies, which were paid for by a levy on B sugar. [12]

Sugar produced within the A and B quotum got a guaranteed support price, i.e. a minimum price whatever the actual world market price for sugar was. The support price for the A quotum was significantly above the world market price. [8] Sugar produced above the quotas, known as 'C-sugar' or 'out-of-quota' sugar, had to be exported outside of the community, sold for non-food uses, or be stored and counted against next year's quotum. [13] The C-sugar did not get an export subsidy. [11]

Import regulation

The European Community put tariffs and quotas on (raw) sugar import from other countries. This assured the coherence of the quota system, and was the principal cause of the internal sugar price being way above the world market prices. [14]

There were a number of trade agreements that allowed (groups of) third countries preferential access to the Community market. It meant that a certain amount / quotum of raw sugar could be imported at low or no duties. Above this quotum, duties were so high that almost no trade existed. [14]

This imported raw cane sugar, in its refined form was allowed to be used for food uses. [15]

Export disposal

The whole system of subsidized beet sugar production and subsidized raw cane sugar import and its refining in the European community, led to a European overproduction of white sugar. This had to be sold at low world market prices.

As long as the export was so-called A-Sugar or B-sugar, the losses were refunded by the Community. If it was C-sugar, it had to be exported by the end of the calendar year without getting subsidies. [12] The export of the white sugar produced from raw sugar imported from the ACP countries was paid for by the Community budget. [16]

Developments

Increased production

Initially, there was an A quota of 6.48 Mt (million t) and a B quota of 2.05 Mt. Up to 1972 production increased by about a quarter. Acreage increased by 8%, and yields increased by 16%. By 1973 the rate of European self-sufficiency for sugar was 105%. [12]

Sugar quotas for 1967/68 [17]
CountryQuotum
Belgium and Luxembourg530,000 t
France2,300,000 t
Germany1,700,000 t
Italy1,230,000 t
Netherlands575,000 t
Total of quotas6,335,000 t

New countries join (1973)

On 1 January 1973 Ireland, Denmark and the United Kingdom joined the European Community. The United Kingdom imported a lot raw sugar from cane, which was processed by its sugar refineries. The Community therefore succeeded to some of the United Kingdom's trade commitments with former colonies in Africa, the Caribbean and Pacific islands (The ACP countries). This gave preferential access to raw sugar equivalent to 1.3 Mt of white sugar, especially for 400,000 t from Australia. This ACP was bought for the intervention price and was not subject to levies. Subsidized sugar exports rose from negligible levels in 1971–1972 to 2 Mt in 1973, including some C-sugar. [12] The European white sugar export related to the raw sugar import from the ACP countries was dubbed the equivalent amount. [8]

Sugar market crisis and increases in prices and quotas

A worldwide drought in 1974 drove the price of Non-ACP imports to 2.6 times the EU intervention price. The drought also reduced EEC production by 1.1 Mt. Increased inflation and fears of sugar shortages then drove the EEC to action. [12] For 1975/76 the A quota was increased to 9.14 Mt and the B quota to 4.1 Mt, the intervention priced was suddenly increased by 21%. [18]

The changes led to strong increases in European sugar production. This peaked at 14.6 Mt in 1981/82, with a self-sufficiency rare of 155%. The increased production led to high costs that were not paid by the sector. In 1978 and 1979 this was about 100 million EUR a year. [18]

Complaints at the GATT

In the early 1980s, the United States lodged complaints with the GATT. These alleged that the EEC export subsidies gave the community an abnormal share of the world sugar trade. Petitions by Australia and Brazil then made that the GATT ruled that EEC subsidies depressed world market prices. In 1982 the USA responded with sugar import quotas. The European policy on exports and stocks was partly responsible for its failure to join the International Sugar Agreement in 1984. The EEC responded by increasing its levies on quota sugar. These also decreased the B sugar price to a level about equivalent to the world market price. However, these measures did not substantially decrease its exports. [18]

Later, the accession of Portugal in 1986 and Finland in 1995 led to accommodations for the sugar refineries in these countries. It allowed 82,000 t of raw sugar from Brazil and Cuba to be imported under Most Favored Nation arrangements. [8]

The Uruguay Round Agreement on Agriculture (1995)

In 1995 the implementation of the Uruguay Round Agreement on Agriculture led to further changes. The EU agreed to reduce the amount of subsidized sugar exports by 21%, and to reduce the amount spent on subsidies by 36%. These reductions did not apply to the C-sugar exports or the white sugar export that was equivalent to the raw sugar import from ACP countries under preferential agreements. [8]

The Everything But Arms initiative

In March 2001 the EU adopted the Everything But Arms (EBA) initiative, which aimed to give duty-free access to al goods exported by the least developed countries. Free access for sugar had to be realized starting with raw sugar import quotas in 2006, and leading to totally duty-free imports in 2009. [10]

Pressure for reform

In time pressure to reform the quota system began to build up. The industrial users of sugar, which accounted for over 70% of consumption, were hindered by the high internal prices. These made that European processed products containing sugar were less competitive on world markets. Meanwhile, other sectors of the CAP were substantially reformed since 1992. These reforms moved away from price and production support measures, and move towards farm income support. This made the sugar regulations incoherent with the new orientations of the EU agricultural policy. [9]

There were also international pressures to abolish the quota system. In a WTO dispute it was found that C-sugar exports were indeed benefitting from cross-subsidiation of within quota production. The EU practice of exempting the equivalent sugar export from preferential importants from its agreed reduction of export subsidies was also found to be contrary to treaty obligations. [9] The Doha Development Round of the WTO led to an agreement to abolish all forms of agricultural export support by 2013. [19]

Options (2001)

In 2001 the EU Council agreed to continue the CMO sugar regime till June 2006, but also asked the European Commission for proposals to replace the system. The EC described three options. The first option was to continue with the existing obligations and system. This was predicted to fail, because the least developed countries would ship their complete production to the EU under the EBA initiative. In time this would destroy even the most competitive European sugar production regions. A second option was to lower the internal market price and quotas. A lower price of about EUR 450 per tonne would diminish imports. The third scenario was a complete liberalization of the EU sugar market. It was expected that this would severely hurt the ACP countries and obliterate sugar production in the European Union. [19]

Reform and restructuring (2005-2010)

In November 2005, the European Council agreed on a reform of the sugar quotas system. This had to comply with international obligations, and bring the CMO for sugar in line with the 2003 CAP reforms. [20]

The intervention price for white sugar was to be cut from EUR 631.9/t to EUR 404.4/t in 2009/10. This would be called a reference price. The minimum price of sugar beet paid to farmers would be cut by 40%. A price reporting mechanism would monitor sugar prices throughout the union. After the restructuring period, the reference price would be used to determine when sugar had to be stored in a private storage system. [20]

During a restructuring period from 2006/07 to 2009/10, the sugar production in the EU had to be reduced. The idea was to incite the less competitive sugar factories to leave the industry, while providing compensation for their owners and the social impact of closures. [21] The planned reduction was from 18,540,000 t [20] to about 12,500,000 t. The restructuring or buy out would be financed by a levy on all sugar produced during the time. The highest compensation would be given for factories that would close down with renunciation of their quotas. Other compensation was for beet growers, diversification measures and transition measures. [22] [23]

At first, the restructuring did not go according to plan. In November 2006 EU agriculture minister Mariann Fischer Boel announced that the renounced amount of quotas was far below expectations. It would lead to an expected surplus of 4.5 Mt of sugar in 2007/08. The minister therefore called upon the industry to take its responsibility, but also threatened with the linear cut of quotas which had been determined in case the restructuring would fail. [24]

The restructuring of the sugar sector would cost about EUR 5.4 bln. It led to a substantial productivity improvement in the sector. [25]

The end of the EU sugar quotas system (2013)

The original plan was to end the quota system in 2015. [26] In 2013 the European Parliament and Member States decided on a CAP reform, and agreed to end the sugar quotas in September 2017. [25] [4]

The current Common Market Organization for Sugar

After the end of the quota system, member states were allowed to provide voluntary coupled support linked to production. For sugar production, this was done by 11 member states. [27]

The European Commission also allows and mandates collective bargaining by beet growers about all aspects of delivering beet, except for the price. This significantly strengthens their position towards the sugar manufacturers. [27]

The Commission constantly provides market information and transparency to the sector. The Sugar Market Observatory is part of this effort. [27]

The commission can grant private storage aid, in case market volatility would cause high losses for producers that cannot store their product. [27]

As a final instrument, the commission can intervene on grounds of several disturbance clauses in the CMO regulation. These pertain to both sharp increases and sharp decreases in prices. [27]

Related Research Articles

The economy of Eswatini is fairly diversified. Agriculture, forestry and mining account for about 13 percent of Eswatini's GDP whereas manufacturing represent 37 percent of GDP. Services – with government services in the lead – constitute the other 50 percent of GDP.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Sucrose</span> Disaccharide made of glucose and fructose

Sucrose, a disaccharide, is a sugar composed of glucose and fructose subunits. It is produced naturally in plants and is the main constituent of white sugar. It has the molecular formula C
12H
22O
11.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Economy of Austria</span>

The economy of Austria is a highly developed social market economy, with the country being one of the fourteen richest in the world in terms of GDP per capita. Until the 1980s, many of Austria's largest industry firms were nationalised. In recent years, privatisation has reduced state holdings to a level comparable to other European economies. Among OECD nations, Austria has a highly efficient and strong social security system; social expenditure stood at roughly 29.4% of GDP.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Common Agricultural Policy</span> Agricultural policy of the European Union

The Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) is the agricultural policy of the European Commission. It implements a system of agricultural subsidies and other programmes. It was introduced in 1962 and has since then undergone several changes to reduce the EEC budget cost and consider rural development in its aims. It has however, been criticised on the grounds of its cost, its environmental, and humanitarian effects.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Agricultural policy</span> Laws relating to domestic agriculture and foreign-imported agricultural products

Agricultural policy describes a set of laws relating to domestic agriculture and imports of foreign agricultural products. Governments usually implement agricultural policies with the goal of achieving a specific outcome in the domestic agricultural product markets. Well designed agricultural policies use predetermined goals, objectives and pathways set by an individual or government for the purpose of achieving a specified outcome, for the benefit of the individual(s), society and the nations' economy at large. The goals could include issues such as biosecurity, food security, rural poverty reduction or increasing economic value through cash crop or improved food distribution or food processing.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Agricultural subsidy</span> Governmental subsidy paid to farmers and agribusinesses

An agricultural subsidy is a government incentive paid to agribusinesses, agricultural organizations and farms to supplement their income, manage the supply of agricultural commodities, and influence the cost and supply of such commodities.

Dumping, in economics, is a form of predatory pricing, especially in the context of international trade. It occurs when manufacturers export a product to another country at a price below the normal price with an injuring effect. The objective of dumping is to increase market share in a foreign market by driving out competition and thereby create a monopoly situation where the exporter will be able to unilaterally dictate price and quality of the product. Trade treaties might include mechanisms to alleviate problems related to dumping, such as countervailing duty penalties and anti-dumping statutes.

The Lomé Convention is a trade and aid agreement between the European Economic Community (EEC) and 71 African, Caribbean, and Pacific (ACP) countries, first signed in February 1975 in Lomé, Togo.

Trade can be a key factor in economic development. The prudent use of trade can boost a country's development and create absolute gains for the trading partners involved. Trade has been touted as an important tool in the path to development by prominent economists. However trade may not be a panacea for development as important questions surrounding how free trade really is and the harm trade can cause domestic infant industries to come into play.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">High-fructose corn syrup</span> Processed corn syrup

High-fructose corn syrup (HFCS), also known as glucose–fructose, isoglucose and glucose–fructose syrup, is a sweetener made from corn starch. As in the production of conventional corn syrup, the starch is broken down into glucose by enzymes. To make HFCS, the corn syrup is further processed by D-xylose isomerase to convert some of its glucose into fructose. HFCS was first marketed in the early 1970s by the Clinton Corn Processing Company, together with the Japanese Agency of Industrial Science and Technology, where the enzyme was discovered in 1965.

The Agreement on Agriculture (AoA) is an international treaty of the World Trade Organization. It was negotiated during the Uruguay Round of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, and entered into force with the establishment of the WTO on 1 January 1995.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Agriculture in Senegal</span> Economic sector in Senegal

Agriculture is one of the dominant parts of Senegal's economy, even though Senegal lies within the drought-prone Sahel region. As only about 5% of the land is irrigated, Senegal continues to rely on rain-fed agriculture. Agriculture occupies about 75% of the workforce. Despite a relatively wide variety of agricultural production, the majority of farmers produce for subsistence needs. Millet, rice, corn, and sorghum are the primary food crops grown in Senegal. Production is subject to drought and threats of pests such as locusts, birds, fruit flies, and white flies. Moreover, the effects of climate change in Senegal are expected to severely harm the agricultural economy due to extreme weather such as drought, as well as increased temperatures.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Agriculture in Turkey</span>

Agriculture is still an important sector of Turkey's economy, and the country is one of the world's top ten agricultural producers. Wheat, sugar beet, milk, poultry, cotton, vegetables and fruit are major products; and Turkey is the world's largest grower of hazelnuts, apricots, and oregano.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Agriculture in Guyana</span>

Agriculture in Guyana is dominated by sugar and rice production. Although once the chief industry, it has been overshadowed by mining.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Guyana Sugar Corporation</span>

The Guyana Sugar Corporation, or GuySuCo, is a Guyanese sugar company owned by the government. It is the country's largest cultivator and producer of sugar, a historically important commodity in the country. They produce Demerara Sugar for export around the world.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Agriculture in Moldova</span>

Moldova is an agrarian-industrial state, with agricultural land occupying 2,499,000 hectares in a total area of 3,384,600 hectares. It is estimated that 1,810,500 of these hectares are arable. Moldova is located in Eastern Europe, and is landlocked, bordering Romania and Ukraine. Moldova's agricultural sector benefits from a geographical proximity to large markets, namely the European Union. As a share of GDP, agriculture has declined from 56% in 1995 to 13.8% in 2013. Data from 2015 estimated that agriculture accounted for 12% of Moldova's GDP. Agriculture as a sector is export-oriented, with the composition of Moldova's total exports containing agriculture and the agri-food sector as a main component. 70% of agri-food exports in 2012 included beverages, edible fruits and nuts, oilseeds, vegetable preparations and cereals. Here, fruits, vegetables and nuts were attributed to 33% of Moldova's exports for 2011–2013. Moldova is also one of the top ten apple exporters in the world. However, because of the long-term emphasis on fruit, vegetables are often imported.

The Jones-Costigan Amendment, also known as the Sugar Act of 1934, passed on May 9, 1934 was an amendment to the Agricultural Adjustment Act that reclassified sugar crop as basic commodity, subject to the provisions of the Agricultural Adjustment Act enacted the previous year. Sponsored by Senator Edward P. Costigan (D-CO) and Representative John Marvin Jones (D-TX), the act was a New Deal effort to salvage an ailing sugar industry by imposing protective tariffs and quotas along with a direct subsidy to growers of sugar cane and sugar beet.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Eurafrica</span> Proposal for a strategic partnership

Eurafrica refers to the originally German idea of strategic partnership between Africa and Europe. In the decades before World War II, German supporters of European integration advocated a merger of African colonies as a first step towards a federal Europe.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Sugar industry</span> Enterprises dealing with sugar

The sugar industry subsumes the production, processing and marketing of sugars. Globally, about 80% of sugar is extracted from sugar cane, grown predominantly in the tropics, and 20% from sugar beet, grown mostly in temperate climate in North America or Europe.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Cosun Beet Company</span> Dutch sugar company

Cosun Beet Company is a part of Royal Cosun. It produces white sugar and other refined sugar products. By acquiring the beet sugar division of Corbion in 2007 and Danisco Sugar GmbH in 2008, Cosun Beet Company became one of the five biggest European producers of sugar from sugar beet.

References

Citations

  1. ↑ Treaty of Rome 1957.
  2. ↑ Article 38 2016.
  3. ↑ Article 39 2016.
  4. 1 2 Q&A 2017, p. Why did the EU have a sugar quota system and why is it ending now?.
  5. ↑ Article 40 2016.
  6. ↑ Glossary CMO 2023.
  7. 1 2 3 4 Leuck & Neff 1991, p. 3.
  8. 1 2 3 4 5 6 OECD 2007, p. 65.
  9. 1 2 3 OECD 2007, p. 73.
  10. 1 2 OECD 2007, p. 66.
  11. 1 2 3 OECD 2007, p. 67.
  12. 1 2 3 4 5 Leuck & Neff 1991, p. 4.
  13. ↑ Q&A 2017, p. How did the quota system work?.
  14. 1 2 OECD 2007, p. 69.
  15. ↑ Q&A 2017, p. How is the sugar sector organised in terms of production, consumption, trade, employment?.
  16. ↑ OECD 2007, p. 68.
  17. ↑ "Ned. aandeel in E.E.G. markt voor suiker bepaald op 575,000 ton". Trouw. 11 February 1967.
  18. 1 2 3 Leuck & Neff 1991, p. 5.
  19. 1 2 OECD 2007, p. 74.
  20. 1 2 3 OECD 2007, p. 75.
  21. ↑ OECD 2007, p. 76.
  22. ↑ OECD 2007, p. 77.
  23. ↑ Council Regulation 2006.
  24. ↑ Fletcher 2007.
  25. 1 2 Press Corner 2017.
  26. ↑ Q&A 2017.
  27. 1 2 3 4 5 Q&A 2017, p. What are the tools provided by the Common Agricultural Policy to the EU sugar sector after the quotas end?.

Bibliography

This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.