Committee of the European Sugar Users
CIUS
CIUS represents the European sugar-using food and beverage industries.
ID: 44875424605-90
Lobbying Activity
Response to Tariff quotas with licences
21 Aug 2019
Whilst CIUS supports the simplified rules set down in the EU Consultation in general, European sugar users would like to request to be eligible for applying for import licences for sugar, alongside sugar traders and cane refiners. This is missing in the Implementing Regulation.
End users must have the tools to be able to mitigate supply issues rather than relying on traders/refiners to make imported sugar available.
Preventing end users of importing, creates a secondary market and can lead to price fixing.
Many traders/refiners are affiliated to the beet sector. These few players already control the vast majority of sugar in the EU. CIUS questions why these operators are allowed to control all imported sugar as well.
Read full responseResponse to Tariff quotas with licences
21 Aug 2019
Whilst CIUS supports the simplified rules set down in the EU Consultation in general, European sugar users would like to request to be eligible for applying for import licences for sugar, alongside sugar traders and cane refiners. This is missing in the Implementing Regulation.
End users must have the tools to be able to mitigate supply issues rather than relying on traders/refiners to make imported sugar available.
Preventing end users of importing, creates a secondary market and can lead to price fixing.
Many traders/refiners are affiliated to the beet sector. These few players already control the vast majority of sugar in the EU. CIUS questions why these operators are allowed to control all imported sugar as well.
Read full responseResponse to Enhancing Market transparency in the agri-food chain
18 Jun 2019
CIUS represents the sugar users of the EU food and drink sector. We welcome the opportunity to comment. More market monitoring/transparency is one of the main priorities for CIUS. CIUS believes that improving market transparency can be achieved by multiple factors besides price transparency. We understand that the aim of the draft is to increase the farmers’ bargaining power and help them to take well-informed production decision. We believe that current market information is already available. But it could be improved by the following:
Information on stocks: in the EU only sugar producers as well as their affiliates and traders store sugar. It is important to improve the collection of this relevant information.
Improving Sugar Price Notifications: clarification should be given on the type of contracts and their length. If reported prices mix prices of one-year contracts and longer-term contracts (2 or 3 years), this wrongly reflects the current communicated average market price.
Spot Market Prices: the EC price monitoring lacks an indicator which gives information concerning short term market developments. CIUS recommends the addition of a short-term component in the price-reporting-system for white sugar by showing spot market prices defined by contracts on sugar signed within the current campaign and delivered during the same campaign.
Inter-Company Exchanges: prices on inter-company exchanges (between different units of the same sugar manufacturer and trader) should not be taken into account, only contracts from sugar undertakings sold directly to users (as well as to retailers). If not, then sugar manufacturers should provide 2 sets of information: the delivered price/volume to users; the delivered price/volume to non-users (affiliates/traders). The ratio of volume for users versus the total would be made public to give a clear indication of the validity of the prices published.
Export Prices: sugar volumes exported are free, it is crucial to include export sales in the price reporting and monitored separately from Intra-EU prices. A single price would pollute the price data since the percentage of export volumes will vary year after year. There is a stronger correlation between the EU price and the world price. Monitoring of exports (volumes and sales) will be essential, to understand the drivers of the market.
Price Communication: the collection of data from producers should avoid a time lag between the date of a contract and the reporting to the EC, in order to have multiple contracts communicated.
Buying prices unnecessary: CIUS is against the extension of the group of rapporteurs for the sugar price monitoring. Introduction of “buying prices” means new administrative costs for many manufacturers in the food sectors. Instead of creating a new reporting system with new firms, CIUS strongly recommends that the current collection of data from sugar producers should be intensified, avoiding a time lag between the date of a contract and the communication to the Commission, in order to have a very large number of contracts communicated. Otherwise, the price reporting might be impacted by a producer choice for communication.
Transparency of the sugar price transmission in the downstream sectors: CIUS would like to stress, that the reality of price formation/transmission in the food supply chain is very complex and goes far beyond price data for single ingredients. Price transmission in the downstream sectors of the supply chain always relies on many aspects, e.g. the market forces supply and demand, consumer preferences or the degree of competition in a market. In the food sector manufacturers face a strong price pressure due to a very high competition.
Furthermore it is to say that excessive price transparency can reduce negotiating capacities and thus can restrict competition.
Read full responseResponse to Increase of the quantitative limit for exports of out-of-quota sugar in the 2016/2017 marketing year
13 Feb 2017
CIUS, the European sugar users of the food and drink sector, is against increasing out of quota exports by 700 000T now. Data shows that there will be insufficient supply for food and drink production in the EU this summer. The EU should not therefore take the risk of allowing such exports unless they also take measures to ensure sufficient supply for production within EU.There are 3 possibilities for decision:
1. Wait for more evidence before deciding on the 2nd tranche of export.
2. Allocate a tranche of 100 to 200,000T. The advantage of this decision is that it permits sugar producers to continue sales to their customers and still keep more time for the Commission to analyse the evolution of imports and stocks.
3. Allocate the full tranche of exports and at the same time launch measures to ensure security of supply for EU food and drink producers (out of quota sugar release and import tenders).
Reasons for this request:
1) The most recent EC’s balance sheet shows a record low level of the end stock forecast of 509 000T. This would be insufficient to cover sugar user needs across the EU.
2) If the 2. tranche of out of quota exports were allocated, it would replicate the market situation faced in Marketing Year '10/11, when the sugar users were faced with a major sugar supply crisis. The working stock is the sum of the quota and out of quota stocks and is necessary to keep a fluid market situation to satisfy the different specifications, the different formats of packaging and the geographical position of the stocks.
Working stock levels (quota + out of quota) in MY 09/10: 1.571 millionT; MY 10/11: 1.218 millionT; MY 15/16: 1.928 millionT; MY 16/17: 1.111 millionT. Even at the end of MY '15/16, with a working end stock of 1.928 millionT, several sugar users experienced a lack of sugar supplies with missing deliveries and contract defaults by sugar suppliers.
3) The supply issue on the EU market is expected to start in the summer (July/August) and this, before the start of the new crop in September. With the exception of Italy and Spain for very limited volumes, it will not be possible for suppliers to start sugar production end of July or in August.
4) The argument that there will be sufficient sugar available for the next MY 2017/18, does not apply before production quotas are effectively removed as of 1/10;
5) Referring again to the market balance forecast of the EC, there are uncertainties about the evolution of imports until September: Imports from EPA/EBA countries are dropping year on year and the trend continues (at the moment, numbers show a drop of around 25%); it is likely that the Commission’s import forecast is too optimistic and overestimated; The ending stock may be much lower than estimated today.
6) The consumption as calculated for the balance sheet published by DG Agriculture end of January, shows up and downs with a limited slowdown trend (100,000T in 6 years). Would the consumption used in the balance sheet be underestimated, a heavy supply crisis would start early in July 2017. Consumption figures (EU Data) MY 09/10: 16.426 millionT; MY 10/11: 17.213 millionT; MY 11/12: 16.915 millionT; MY 12/13: 16.575 million T; MY 13/14: 17.196 millionT; MY 14/15: 16.758 millionT; MY 15/16: 16.514 millionT.
It would be unacceptable for the EU authorities to “provide additional business opportunities for the EU producers of sugar” while failing to protect existing and future business opportunities for EU food and drink manufacturers of sugar containing products. It is important to note that production and exports of high value products sustain more jobs and income for the EU than exporting sugar alone. Exports of high value products should be promoted first. It would make much better economic sense for the EU to make out of quota sugar available for EU sugar users faced with supply problems, who also have to remain competitive on global markets, than making it available to our competitors outside.
Read full responseMeeting with Cristina Rueda Catry (Cabinet of Commissioner Phil Hogan), Tom Tynan (Cabinet of Commissioner Phil Hogan)
24 Mar 2015 · Exchange of views on the current sugar market situation based on the balance sheet of the Commission and state of play of supplies / stocks, imports, exports, out of quota sugar.