Ian McDonald
I FEEL MORE contempt than anger at the behaviour of the European Union (EU) in deciding to go ahead with changes to its sugar regime which will brutally affect the livelihood and lives of millions of people in small, vulnerable developing African, Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) states. Anger is what one feels when a good friend has behaved badly. Contempt is what one feels for someone you no longer trust who has again acted just about as unworthily as could be expected.
The EU has decided to cut the price paid for sugar by 36 per cent. This will deal a devastating blow to the revenue earned by sugar industries in ACP countries. Let any wage earner imagine the trauma of waking up to learn that his pay packet is to be cut by over a third. It will cost the Caribbean Community (CARICOM) US$95 million per annum, and in Guyana's case it means a reduction in revenue of US$37 million per annum.
SIDING WITH THE RICH
In making its decision, the EU has most generously comforted its rich domestic stakeholders while virtually ignoring its vulnerable and poor ACP stakeholders. The EU has cynically bought off previous domestic opponents to the changes by offering a huge compensation package estimated to total ¤8,000 million to go along with approximately ¤3,000 million in windfall gains for EU big business and multinational companies. These huge amounts compare with the insulting pittance, of ¤40 million offered to the 18 ACP countries for 2006 - and even in respect of that pittance, doubt exists since there is a nasty little squabble going on about where in the EU budget this meagre sum can possibly be found.
A particularly glaring example of unprincipled discrimination is the decision, in spite of repeated and strong ACP objections, to take the ¤35 million in refining aid previously given to EU cane refiners and make the ACP pay it by way of price cut in order to use the savings to assist in compensating EU producers.
What an ignoble deal this is! It is hard not to be scornful of the mean spirit which inspires rich-country duplicity and discrimination of this kind. Are such people really fit to lead the way internationally towards a better world?
The Sugar Protocol is not a 'preferential' arrangement; it is a long-standing commercial agreement between two parties which cannot be abrogated or varied unilaterally. The Sugar Protocol calls for an annually negotiated price. By imposing a price cut on the ACP, the EU is clearly in contravention of the Sugar Protocol.
Also, it was promised in the Cotonou Agreement between the EU and the ACP that the Sugar Protocol, in light of its special legal status, would be reviewed in order to safeguard the benefits it affords the ACP. Surely not even the EU in the fullness of its cynicism can claim that a 36 per cent cut in the Sugar Protocol price, unilaterally imposed, is 'safeguarding' our benefits.
It remains important for the ACP to continue making the case in Europe for an equitable settlement of this issue. The European Parliament will have its say in January and civil society in Europe is actively canvassing for our vital interests. The issue must also be raised at the Doha Development Round Ministerial meeting in Hong Kong, in the middle of December, as a matter which must be addressed urgently and not left to fester.
FUNDING
A resolution of this issue must clearly involve the EU providing funding for its ACP stakeholders at least on a par with the funding it is providing for its domestic stakeholders. Indeed, the ACP should receive premium funding if the EU is serious in its protestations of special concern for developing countries. Soon the ACP countries involved will present the action plans which the EU has requested to indicate what funding will be required over the next eight years. How the EU responds to the ACP requirements will be one very good test of whether there can continue to be a fruitful economic partnership between the two parties.
Ian McDonald is an occasional contributor who lives and works in Georgetown, Guyana.
