Several European NGOs in Brussels, on 10 March held an informal roundtable discussions to discuss the issue of the distortions of the EU's Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) on trade with developing countries at the invitation of the European Research Office (ERO) and the Global Food and Security Group, GFSG - Ireland. Participants present included NGOs representatives from the Eurostep Secretariat, ActionAid UK, NOVIB and the Liaison Committee of European NGOs.
The aims of the meeting were to share the results of research on the issues done by the participants, discuss current experiences of lobbying around the issue and develop a more concerted approach to lobbying and campaigning on the issue. Participants discussed in particular distortions caused by EU export refunds for processed food products. In order to compensate for the price increasing effects of the CAP and allow European industries using CAP products to compete in world markets an export refund scheme has been set up. The refund scheme seeks to bridge the gap between the world price and the internal EU price. Refunds are paid on the content of sugar, cereal, dairy, fruit, vegetable, etc.. As no formula exists for determining the specific content for individual products, the exporter is left to declare the inputs used and the export refunds being claimed. The effects of these refunds on the sugar sector are expected to be the most severe. A table presented at the meeting showed the percentage of EU expansion of exports on sugar based products to South Africa in the first nine months of 1998: sugar confectionery (219%), chocolate products (247%) and pastry products (309%). The projected annual increase for all three products represents almost a 5 fold increase in exports of these products, to the detriment of local producers.
During discussions a widely raised point was the need for lobbyists and researchers to produce specific concrete case studies illustrating the harmful effects of the CAP, especially on the poor in developing countries. Several participants informed the meeting that they were in the process of preparing case studies on the harmful effects of the CAP policy on specific products in specific regions in the vein of Ek het Niks - The Impact of European Union Policies on Women Canning Workers in South Africa (copies of this document can be obtained from IBIS - email: [email protected]; One World Action - email: [email protected]; and Terre des Hommes - email: [email protected])
Among the proposals participants proposed were for EU NGOs to: 1. Ask their agricultural ministers to, in the first instance, acknowledge that the CAP causes problems for developing countries and then take effective steps to minimise the negative effects of the deployment of CAP instruments on individual developing countries/regions. 2. Lobby the Commission to take on board consultative mechanisms with appropriate bodies in sub-regions in the developing world so that EU agriculture products do no enter developing country markets at prices and volumes likely to disrupt regional trade, particularly trade involving communal farmers. (if possible this should be incorporated in Agenda 2000) 3. Draw up questions for prospective European Parliament members on CAP and development issues (talent spotting) in order to identify whom to best collaborate with on theses issues in the incoming parliament.
On the Commission's draft proposal for the EU-South Africa Trade and Economic Cooperation Agreement to be presented at the March 22 General Affairs Council, the meeting was informed that the provisions for the safeguard clause proposed is skewed in favour of the EU. The safeguard clause provides for measures to be taken in the case of import surges which threaten or cause injury to domestic producers. This provision is also extended to Botswana, Lesotho, Namibia and Swaziland who share a customs union with South Africa. However, while the EU can increase export refunds unilaterally, any decisions taken under the safeguard clause have to pass through a joint committee, in which Botswana, Swaziland, Lesotho and Namibia are not represented, who would decide on measures to be taken. Pending a final decision by the Joint Committee provisional measures can only be taken in exceptional cases and even then, they must take account of EU interests.
The participants agreed to continue sharing information following the meeting on research, lobbying strategies etc. as well as in certain cases collaborate on strategies. The participants also agreed to explore the possibility of a follow-up meeting. For more information on the roundtable discussion, you can contact the European Research Office at 105 Grasmarkt, 1000 Brussels, Tel: 00 32 2 502 50 92; Fax: 00 32 2 502 52 76.
2. ACP-EU NEGOTIATIONS
There is still some confusion as to when the next ACP-EU Ministerial Negotiations meetings will take place. As reported in PAF 121, the ACP Council of Ministers proposed in Dakar that the meeting be held on 14-15 July in Brussels. The EU however, had earlier on proposed that the meeting take place on 5-6 July. According to an EU Permanent Representative the meeting should now take place on 28-29 July, as these are the only dates that both parties can agree on. This should be preceded by the ACP Council of Ministers on 25-28 (morning) July. According to the EU Permanent Representative, the ACP have been pushing to hold the meeting in Helsinki while the EU prefer it in Brussels. It is now most likely that the meeting will be held in Brussels as this is the choice of the Finnish Government who will be holding the EU Presidency from July. The next round of negotiations between the Commission and the Committee of Ambassadors takes place on March 24.
Other meetings of interest or relation to the Negotiations follow:
29 March -1 April Strasbourg ACP-EU Joint Assembly 21 May, Brussels EU Development Council Mid-September, Swaziland ACP Ministerial level meeting on the sugar protocol End of September 2nd Summit of ACP Heads of State
3. IN BRIEF
The European Commission's Directorate for Agriculture, DG VI, have been asked to prepare a study on the impact of the Common Agricultural Policy on developing countries by the German Parliament. Though this report is in its final stages, DG VI are still looking for contributions from informed organisations on the issue, particularly on matters relating to the assessment of the trade potential of developing countries following liberalisation. While the report will not be an internal document, it will only receive a very limited distribution. To send in contributions, you can contact Mr. Bernard Pankin at DGVI, Tel: 00 32 2 296 11 43.
According to the Eurobarometer 51% of Europeans are in favour of increasing the aid their government grants to developing countries. Six out of ten want European Commission aid in particular to increase. 76% of Europeans believe development aid to be an important goal to pursue. Those not recognising its importance cite three reasons: more pressing problems in their own countries (poverty, unemployment); misappropriation of money by developing countries; and armed conflict and political instability. Only 24% of Europeans, however, have a correct idea of the percentage of aid their governments grant. Geographical proximity is the main concern for most citizens when choosing countries best placed to help poor populations in Africa, South America and Asia.
It is reported that a compromise was reached amongst EU agricultural ministers on the principle of CAP reform on Thursday 11 March. There is still however an obstacle in the extra cost of about 6.9 billion euros compared to the financial framework that was agreed by Heads of States during their informal summit in St Petersburg. No final decision can be taken before the European Parliament gives its opinion.
The International Confederation of Free Trade Unions is urging the WTO to take account of social consequences of the banana affair. They called negotiations on bananas to go hand in hand with the setting up of an international programme responsible for the respect of social and environmental standards.