Madam, - In arguing against the proposals for reforming the EU sugar regime (Opinion,August 5th) Martin Mansergh is defending the indefensible. There is a case for public support of farming in the EU, but not all forms of support are justified.
The EU produces far more sugar than can be consumed domestically. The surplus, typically around 5 million tons or up to 25 per cent of total output, is exported at a subsidised price well below the cost of production. It is dumped on the world market. The export subsidy comes partly from public funds and partly from higher consumer prices (aided by a complex system of quotas).
While the precise figures vary from year to year, the dumped sugar represents 15 per cent or more of total world exports. Farmers in some of the poorest countries in Africa and elsewhere cannot compete against these subsidised prices and lose their livelihood - as a direct consequence of the EU sugar regime. This direct cause and effect has been documented in detail by Oxfam, other development organisations and international agencies.
There is an unethical core at the heart of the EU sugar regime, from which Ireland and 20 other member-states benefit. European consumers who buy sugar, and products containing sugar, are forced to pay directly for this unethical policy. As a consumer organisation this is the basis of our opposition to the sugar regime, and not some simplistic demand for low prices at any cost. It is one thing to argue that consumers should support farming; it is another to argue that consumers should be forced to pay for an unethical policy.
The EU must stop exporting sugar at less than the true cost of production. The only way to do this is to cut surplus sugar production. There is room for argument as to how to allocate these cuts among different member-states, and Martin Mansergh may be hinting at this, but the end result must be a total cut of some 5 million tons a year.
Of course the reform will be both complex and, for many, painful. It should include appropriate transitional support for those worst affected, inside and outside the EU.
The current sugar regime does provide support to some poor countries (Mauritius, Jamaica and others) by a system of preferential access for raw sugar, but that support can and should be replaced by new forms of support that better promote sustainable and long-term development in the countries concerned. There should also be a system of temporary transitional support for these countries, far in excess of the amounts proposed by the Commission. - Yours, etc,
JIM MURRAY,
Director, BEUC,
the European Consumers' Organisation,
Brussels,
Belgium.