1-2 of 2 results for subject:Sugar
Librarians' tools
- Search time
- 0.164 seconds
- Solr query time
- 0.003 seconds
- Search query
- subject:Sugar
- We searched for
- subject_t:Sugar OR subject_ses:13110
Primary member
X
Campbell-Savours, Lord
Type
House
Session
Year
Department
Member
Primary member
More
Campbell-Savours, Lord (2)
Answering member
Legislative stage
Legislation
Subject
Publisher
What estimates they have made of the consequences which the reform of the European Union sugar regime will have on the Jamaican economy.
What estimates they have made of the consequences which the reform of the European Union sugar regime will have on the Jamaican economy.
Asked by
Lord Campbell-Savours
(Labour)
Answered by
Lord Triesman
(Labour)
Type
Written questions
Status
Answered
Answered on
8 December 2005
We recognise the negative impacts that the reforms to the EU sugar regime agreed at the 24 November Agriculture Council will have on some African, Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) sugar producers—including Jamaica—with preferential access to the EU market. However, we welcome the overall reforms, particularly the benefits they will bring to many developing countries. Furthermore, the reforms will see a smaller price cut and a longer adjustment period than originally proposed. This will give the ACP a better opportunity to adapt to the reforms.The EU will provide transitional assistance to help ACP producers improve their efficiency in the sugar sector where feasible or diversify into more profitable sectors. Ensuring that credible and timely transitional assistance is in place remains a priority for the UK.In September 2003, the Department for International Development (DfID) commissioned consultants LMC International Ltd (LMC) to produce an independent report on the impact that EU sugar reform would have by 2015 on the ACP countries that are party to the sugar protocol. This work was updated in June 2005, after the Commission put forward its proposals but before agreement was reached on the shape of the reforms. It therefore assumes a 39 per cent price cut rather than the actual 36 per cent.The sugar industry in Jamaica currently contributes about 1 per cent to GDP (mainly through exports to the EU) and it employs around 30,000 workers (2.5 per cent of the workforce). On the basis of the limited information available to it, the LMC study forecasts that the sugar industry in Jamaica was likely to be unsustainable after the EU reforms. This conclusion was contested by the Government of Jamaica, who have since clearly stated that there will be a viable sugar industry after transition.A more recent assessment by European Commission funded consultants (who again assumed a 39 per cent price cut) concluded that this would reduce the value of sugar export revenues from 6.9 per cent of total exports to 4.9 per cent and a reduction of 0.8 per cent of GDP over four years. The consultants estimate redundancy costs of €10.5 million, assuming that the government decide to close two of the state-owned mills.A recent International Monetary Fund working paper estimated that a similar reduction in preferences would result in the loss of 1.4 per cent. of exports and a 0.6 per cent reduction in GDP for Jamaica. But these estimates should be viewed with caution, as they are based on a number of strong assumptions.Currently, DfID is collaborating with the World Bank to assess the implications of the EU reforms for the rural economy as a whole. We are also supporting the Planning Institute of Jamaica to carry out a study on the social impact of the erosion of sugar preferences and how best to help those affected adversely by the changes.
Subjects
Economic situation; EU external trade; Reform; Sugar; Jamaica; Common sugar regime
Date
8 December 2005
Reference
2657; 676 c121-2WA
House
House of Lords
What measures they are supporting, both bilaterally and multilaterally, to compensate Jamaica for its loss of income arising from the recent reform of the European Union sugar regime.
What measures they are supporting, both bilaterally and multilaterally, to compensate Jamaica for its loss of income arising from the recent reform of the European Union sugar regime.
Asked by
Lord Campbell-Savours
(Labour)
Answered by
Lord Triesman
(Labour)
Type
Written questions
Status
Answered
Answered on
8 December 2005
The agreement reached at 24 November Agriculture Council to reform the EU sugar regime will bring it into line with other already reformed CAP sectors and will benefit many developing countries. But we recognise the negative impacts that the EU reforms will have on some African, Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) sugar producers, including Jamaica, with preferential access to the EU market.As my right honourable friend the Prime Minister said in his speech at Guildhall on 14 November (www.number-10.gov.uk/output/Page8524.asp), we recognise the problem of preference erosion. This does not argue for maintaining the current system, but it does argue for helping the countries affected through the transition. The EU will provide transitional assistance to help ACP producers improve their efficiency in the sugar sector where feasible or diversify into more profitable sectors. Ensuring that credible and timely transitional assistance is in place remains a priority for the UK.We have supported the Commission’s proposal of €40 million in transitional assistance for ACP producers in the first year (2006). We have worked hard to secure this amount in the negotiations on the 2006 EU budget, which we hope will formally be agreed by the European Parliament when it meets in a plenary session in mid-December. Further funding will be available over the following seven years, and the UK will fight to ensure it is adequate and timely.The Department for International Development (DfID) is collaborating with the World Bank to assess the implications of the EU reforms for the rural economy as a whole. DfID is also supporting the Planning Institute of Jamaica to carry out a study on the social impact of the erosion of sugar preferences and how best to help those adversely affected by the changes.
Subjects
EU external trade; Reform; Sugar; EU aid; Jamaica; ACP countries; Common sugar regime; Economic partnership agreements
Date
8 December 2005
Reference
2656; 676 c121WA
House
House of Lords