OpenLobby.EU
Explore

International Confederation of European Beet Growers

CIBE

CIBE is the main representative body for European sugar beet growers.

Lobbying Activity

Meeting with Benoit Cassart (Member of the European Parliament)

15 Jan 2026 · Accords commerciaux et impact sur le sucre

Meeting with Koen Dillen (Head of Unit Agriculture and Rural Development)

11 Dec 2025 · Discussion on EU crisis management tools under Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013 (the CMO Regulation) applicable in the sugar sector

Meeting with Brigitte Misonne (Acting Director Agriculture and Rural Development)

20 Oct 2025 · Discussion on the market situation of the EU sugar sector.

Beet growers urge faster approvals for all crop protection tools

14 Oct 2025
Topic — The initiative simplifies food safety laws and accelerates market access for biocontrol substances.
Message — The Commission should accelerate market access for all safe and effective crop protection products. Authorisation improvements should apply to all tools rather than just benefiting biocontrol solutions.12
Why — Streamlined procedures would restore a shrinking toolbox and maintain the sector's economic competitiveness.3
Impact — Environmentalists lose as the proposal shifts focus from hazard potential to exposure risks.4
Read full response

European Beet Growers Warn Against Stricter Pesticide Approval Rules

9 Oct 2025
Topic — EU regulation updating safety standards for pesticide authorization regarding birds, mammals, bees and water.
Message — The organization requests that amendments not further lengthen the already slow pesticide approval process. They warn that new requirements will make the regime even more prohibitive to applicants and harm farmers' access to crop protection tools.12
Why — This would preserve access to chemical pesticides and avoid further losses to their crop protection toolbox.345
Impact — Birds, mammals, bees and consumers lose stronger protections from pesticide exposure and water contamination.6
Read full response

Meeting with Brigitte Misonne (Acting Director Agriculture and Rural Development)

1 Oct 2025 · Discussion on the recent Commission proposals on agriculture - with particular attention to the sugar sector - presented in the context of the upcoming MFF

Meeting with Catherine Combette (Head of Unit Agriculture and Rural Development)

2 Sept 2025 · State of play of Free Trade Agreements (FTA) negotiations with India and Australia

Response to Towards a Circular, Regenerative and Competitive Bioeconomy

23 Jun 2025

Find on the document attached CIBE-CEFS Input on the 2025 EU Bioeconomy Strategy: Perspectives from European Beet Sugar Sector. CEFS, representing EU sugar manufacturers, and CIBE, representing sugar beet growers, welcome the review of the EU Bioeconomy Strategy. Beet sugar is produced in 83 factories in 17 EU Member States, supplied by almost 100,000 sugar beet growers. Our aim is to ensure that the strategy supports the competitiveness and sustainability of the EU domestic bioeconomy and its actors in rural areas, while recognising the pivotal role of sugar beet and unleash the potential of all its derived products in this ecosystem. The beet sugar sector contributes to the EU's food sovereignty, decarbonisation, preservation of the environment and availability of bio-based products. The European beet sugar sector is fully circular, valorising all products and material side streams along the entire process. From table sugar to bioethanol, molasses, animal feed, biomethane, biochemicals, bioplastics, sugar factory lime, and more, the sector is active in the development of a wide range of products, all derived from sugar beet, for food, feed, energy and non-food use. Key Recommendations: - Recognise sugar as a strategic agricultural product - Support the diversification of sugar beet outlets - Remove regulatory barriers for bio-based materials - Boost investment in biorefineries and bioeconomy infrastructure - Strengthen rural development and farm viability - Guarantee coherent, level playing field trade and strategic market safeguards - Promote R&D, innovation and modern technologies. The possibilities for sugar beet in the bioeconomy are vast and still underexploited in the EU compared to third countries producing other sugary crops. The EU must unlock the full potential of sugar beet in the bioeconomy from bioplastics to green energy, from rural growth to industrial sovereignty. Recognising sugar as strategic and supporting the diversification of its uses is essential to making the EU bioeconomy competitive, circular, and resilient.
Read full response

Meeting with Brigitte Misonne (Acting Director Agriculture and Rural Development)

12 Jun 2025 · Panel discussion entitled “From Green Deal to a new Vision for the EU agriculture: what does it mean for European growers?”

Meeting with Gijs Schilthuis (Director Agriculture and Rural Development) and

12 May 2025 · Difficulties to combat pests and diseases affecting sugar beet

Meeting with Klaus Berend (Director Health and Food Safety)

12 May 2025 · Difficulties to combat pests and diseases affecting sugar beet.

Meeting with Maroš Šefčovič (Commissioner) and

13 Mar 2025 · Negotiations with Ukraine under Article 29 of the Association Agreement (tariff liberalisation) – Position of European agricultural stakeholders (sugar, poultry, eggs, ethanol, maize, wheat and honey)

Meeting with Christophe Hansen (Commissioner) and

13 Feb 2025 · Review of the EU-Ukraine Deep and Comprehensive Free Trade Area (DCFTA)

Beet growers urge updated sugar thresholds to combat inflation

10 Feb 2025
Topic — EU initiative to strengthen farmers' bargaining power within the food supply chain.
Message — The organization requests that sugar beet growers be included in all contract improvements. They also propose updating the sugar price threshold to reflect inflation and current production costs.12
Why — An updated price threshold would help growers recover significantly higher production costs.3
Impact — Sugar processors and consumers may face higher prices due to updated thresholds.4
Read full response

Meeting with Elisabetta Siracusa (Director Agriculture and Rural Development) and

29 Jan 2025 · Review of the EU-Ukraine Deep and Comprehensive Free Trade Area (DCFTA)

Meeting with Valérie Hayer (Member of the European Parliament)

20 Nov 2024 · Divers

Meeting with Eric Sargiacomo (Member of the European Parliament)

5 Nov 2024 · EU sugar beet sector's

CIBE calls for strict quotas on Ukrainian sugar imports

30 Sept 2024
Topic — This consultation addresses the further removal of customs duties between the EU and Ukraine.
Message — CIBE requests maintaining import limits by calibrating quotas based on historical levels. They demand Ukraine align with European environmental and labor standards for market access.12
Why — These measures would prevent market disruptions and ensure the sustainability of EU growers.3
Impact — Developing nations face harm as Ukrainian imports displace their preferential sugar exports.4
Read full response

Meeting with Benoit Cassart (Member of the European Parliament)

9 Sept 2024 · Prise de contact

Meeting with Pascal Arimont (Member of the European Parliament)

28 Mar 2024 · Company visit

Meeting with Olivér Várhelyi (Commissioner) and

7 Mar 2024 · Ukraine

Meeting with Janusz Wojciechowski (Commissioner) and European farmers and

10 Jan 2024 · Meeting with EU associations representing different sectors and actors presenting a proposal for a mechanism to protect sugar, cereals/oilseeds, poultry meat and eggs farmers/producers from severe market disturbance linked to imports from Ukraine.

European beet growers urge EU to treat genomic crops as conventional

3 Nov 2023
Topic — A new legal framework for plants produced by specific new genomic techniques.
Message — CIBE requests that "Category 1" genomic plants be treated like conventional varieties, removing mandatory labeling and national opt-outs. They advocate for science-based verification and the inclusion of herbicide-tolerant crops to reduce chemical use.123
Why — Growers would benefit from lower input costs and easier access to resilient, innovative seeds.45
Impact — Organic producers lose access to modern breeding tools while consumers lose product transparency.67
Read full response

Meeting with Clara Aguilera (Member of the European Parliament, Rapporteur for opinion) and Asociación empresarial para la protección de las plantas

9 Mar 2023 · Sustainable Use of Pesticides Regulation

European Beet Growers Challenge Electronic Record-Keeping Requirements for Pesticides

3 Nov 2022
Topic — EU regulation mandating electronic records of plant protection product use by farmers.
Message — The organization requests that farmers be allowed to keep paper records instead of being forced to use electronic formats. They argue the digital mandate ignores rural areas' lack of internet access and digital skills. They also oppose requiring EPPO codes and BBCH growth stages as unnecessary burdens.123
Why — This would avoid compliance costs and technical burdens for farmers lacking digital infrastructure.45
Impact — Public transparency advocates lose detailed, standardized pesticide use data needed for oversight.6
Read full response

Meeting with Janusz Wojciechowski (Commissioner) and

20 Oct 2022 · Issues of the sugar sector in the light of the current legislative developments (Regulation SUR, Regulation on due diligence on imported deforestation etc.).

European Beet Growers Oppose 50% Pesticide Reduction Without Viable Alternatives

19 Sept 2022
Topic — EU regulation proposing 50% pesticide reduction by 2030 for sustainable agriculture.
Message — They request thorough impact assessments before implementing targets, availability of effective alternatives before PPP reductions, and revised definitions of sensitive areas. They oppose the ban on all pesticide use in sensitive areas and demand less rigid crop-specific rules.123
Why — This would maintain their crop protection toolbox and avoid yield losses from premature restrictions.456
Impact — Environmental groups lose stronger protections from pesticide exposure in sensitive areas.7
Read full response

Beet growers urge EU to ban forced labor sugar imports

20 Jun 2022
Topic — A plan to prohibit products made using forced labor from the European market.
Message — The sugar industry wants the ban to cover modern slavery and child labor across the entire supply chain. They also call for mandatory agricultural labor inspections to be included in all EU trade agreements.12
Why — This would protect European farmers from being undercut by cheaper imports produced under poor labor conditions.3
Impact — Major sugar exporters with documented labor violations would face restricted access to European markets.4
Read full response

European beet growers demand funding for precision nutrient management

26 Apr 2022
Topic — The EU is developing a plan to manage nitrogen and phosphorus cycles efficiently.
Message — CIBE insists the plan recognize crops' nutritional needs and successful existing reduction efforts. They request financial support for precision technology and backing for New Genomic Techniques.123
Why — Subsidized technology would help growers maintain yields while lowering their fertilizer costs.4
Impact — Farmers in undersupplied regions lose if regulations ignore regional soil nutrient variations.56
Read full response

Response to Application of EU health and environmental standards to imported agricultural and agri-food products

16 Mar 2022

CIBE would like to focus its contribution on the need and rationale in applying EU health and environmental standards (HESs). CIBE would like to stress that the report specifically states production methods among the standards to be applied, the aim is to impose similar measures for imported products as soon as the associated issues can be justified with regards to harmful effects in terms of public health and environment. EU standards should not only be manifest via Maximum Residue Levels (MRLs) in imported products, MRLs which should be revised, but also: - via the way in which these products were produced; - how the crops giving rise to these products were grown. This includes the use of production inputs, such as for example plant protection products (PPPs). The notion of MRL (in end-product standards) is not sufficient: it does not make it possible, for a primary processed product, to ensure that it has not been produced with PPPs prohibited in the EU. Indeed, the sugar extraction and purification process would make sugar compliant in terms of MRLs, regardless of the production methods and PPPs used for the cultivation of cane or beet from which this imported sugar comes. Therefore, processes and crop production methods should be included in applying EU HESs. In the PPP context, the EU has the strictest standards in the world and these standards continue to become stricter. Consequently, farmers in the EU have a limited number of PPP active substances (AS) at their disposal: of the 1466 AS currently listed in the EU database, only 449 are approved at EU level for all the agri sectors in the EU. However, farmers in AU, BR, CO, IN, ZA and TH have access to respectively 80, 81, 131, 132, 180 and 320 PPP AS which are not approved in the EU – be it through withdrawal/non-renewal of approval or expiry of approval in the EU or that they were never authorised in the EU in the first place. Taking the commodity example of sugar, sugar cane growers in AU, BR, CO, MX and India have access to respectively 38, 41, 20, 39, and 40 PPP AS which are not approved in the EU. Human health and environmental impacts from a given PPP AS don’t differ substantially depending on the growing region and on the crop. A PPP AS which is deemed to be hazardous/dangerous to human health and the environment and biodiversity poses a risk, no matter where and on what crop(s) it is used. Analysing more in depth the PPP AS still approved for use in agriculture in AU, BR, CO, IN, ZA and TH and not approved in the EU, CIBE has listed the PPP AS authorised for use in at least one of these countries (see full contribution) in 3 groups: • AS banned in the EU • AS which had their approval in the EU withdrawn over a decade ago • AS which had their approval in the EU withdrawn in the past decade Whatever the procedure, the mentioned PPP AS have been banned or withdrawn because of the possible danger and risk in terms of health, the environment and biodiversity. The lists of named PPP AS are also conservative, as they do not take into account: • AS which were never notified & authorised in the EU • AS for which the applicant ultimately did not seek renewal of approval in the EU & the approval of which therefore simply expired & was not renewed • currently EU approved AS which are Candidates for Substitution, which will consequently have a higher hazard weighting • AS which are not authorised in the EU but which are not listed in the EU PPP database, according to the Pesticide Properties Database of the University of Herefordshire. Climate change is changing the movement and intensity of pests worldwide, including in the EU. Third countries don’t have a “more unfavourable environment” compared to the EU to justify the use of hazardous PPP AS. This shows that the rationale and justification in applying EU HESs are clear: there are clear justifications to request the ban of banned/not approved PPP AS used to grow and produce imported agricultural and agri-food products
Read full response

Response to Towards the future Generalised Scheme of Preferences legal framework granting trade advantages to developing countries

17 Nov 2021

CIBE (International Confederation of European Beet Growers) expresses its support for the current revision of the EU GSP scheme and the parallel revision of the scope of the TSD chapter ambitions. CIBE takes note that the GSP, the GSP+ special incentive, and the EPAs (Economic Partnership Agreements) have been considered as instruments of economic development for partner countries. CIBE welcomes the strengthening of climate change and environmental protection standards introduced by the new GSP regulation, with the possibility to withdraw from GSP benefits for serious and systematic violations of climate change and environmental protection along with the principles of the conventions on human, social and labour rights. CIBE takes note of the objective of the European Commission for the EU to become the global leader in driving the global green transition and its role in promoting human and social rights by the EU Action Plan on Human Rights and Democracy and by the ratification and application of the UN Core International Human Rights treaties. Moving from a trading system based only on competitive advantage, to one based on competitive advantage and respect of people and planet, it is the only condition for the EU Green Deal to reach its objectives. CIBE stresses the necessity of matching the paradigm change required from European Commission to European producers and farmers with a paradigm change in EU Trade Policy. Reciprocity through mirror clauses and extension of the scope of Annex VI of the proposed revised GSP regulation should be introduced in the revised GSP scheme. This consists of compliance with relevant international conventions on labour and social rights, as well as on the environment and public health and with the relevant EU legislation on health and the environment. CIBE has documented the breaches of sustainability provisions under the Generalized Scheme of Preferences (GSP), focusing particularly on some cane sugar-producing countries. This report highlights the recurrent violations of sustainability provisions (by non-enforcement), particularly in: eSwatini, Mozambique, Laos, and Pakistan. CIBE welcomes the regulation proposal for the GSP+ candidate countries to submit an action plan for the implementation of the relevant sustainability conventions. However, CIBE points out that this new provision is not sufficient to address the recurrent number of violations reported in beneficiaries’ countries as it would not concern GSP and the EBA countries’, even if they represent most of the beneficiaries of this regulation. Therefore, CIBE asks for the inclusion of specific enforcement provisions, including the pre-ratification and enforcement of ILO conventions and of relevant MEAs for all GSP schemes and the periodic monitoring for all beneficiary countries. Specific provisions should be included for the respect of Human Rights and good governance conventions, as foreseen by the UN SDGs and in line with the EU Action Plan on Human Rights and Democracy. A clearly defined and transparent cooperation with European and International stakeholders to enhance the monitoring and implementation the GSP sustainable provisions should be introduced. A sanctionable enforcement approach with clear roadmaps and benchmarks should also be introduced. The revised GSP Regulation should include measurable benchmarks and roadmaps to monitor GSP countries’ compliance with an enlarged list of international conventions to be included in Annex VI of the proposed revised GSP regulation.
Read full response

Response to Restoring sustainable carbon cycles

7 Oct 2021

CIBE welcomes the initiative by the Commission aiming to support the development of sustainable carbon removal solutions and to propose an action plan to promote carbon farming and develop a regulatory framework for the certification of carbon removals. Carbon farming has several advantages: increasing the preservation of carbon in soil, benefiting soil fertility, protecting our carbon rich soils, reducing carbon emissions etc. Farmers as well as foresters are the only ones who can actually sequester carbon. With new climatic targets for 2030 and an objective to reduce greenhouse emissions by at least 55% compared to 1990, the EU has been zooming in on the agriculture sector. Thanks to carbon sequestration, farmers are part of the solution for climate change. But this will involve costs that farmers cannot carry on their own. That is why farmers and growers need better incentives and a new business model. Therefore, there is a need for the EU to provide farmers with strong support and financial rewards, as well as with common standards on how to get there. CIBE welcomes that the future communication will identify the key elements to build a robust and credible framework, allowing only authentic, transparent and verifiable carbon removals to be certified. We understand that the proposal for a regulatory framework for the certification of carbon removals is not part of the present initiative but will constitute a forthcoming initiative on its own. One of the key starting points will be the quantification of carbon removal. There is a need for an EU methodology framework that will evaluate and measure carbon removal as well as bring the necessary guarantee to the quality of the different projects. While farmers are very open to move towards such a transformation, it will still require a big adaptation and effort of their production systems. Farmers are the ones who know their farms, soils and ecosystems best. That is why farmers and farms should be the starting point for any framework: any methodology to be introduced should allow for flexibility in the implementation of practices and calculation of carbon removal. Certification framework should be adapted to the economic and technical specificities of each farm. Several schemes and labels are already in place. The Commission should pay particular attention to those implemented, labelled and recognized in some Member States and take into consideration their methodology. All methodologies adopted should be recognized by a governmental or EU body and certified by external auditors. The methodology framework should entail the following elements: reference, scope, additionality requirement, calculation/quantification of carbon removal, evaluation of co-benefits, permanence and control procedure. With regards to the scope, CIBE is favourable to a farm systemic approach, covering the entire crop rotation (no single-crop approach). With regards to quantification of carbon removal, the methodologies must make possible to reward actions to maintain existing carbon stocks built up in the past, as well as low-emission practices already adopted by farmers. The implementation of carbon certification methodologies will require collecting a large amount of data. This must be based on the tools already in place to avoid the farmer from double work and new administrative burdens. Risks and costs for farmers should be considered. Carbon financial reward must be compatible with the different sources of finance that contributes to farm income: local support, CAP payments and any other funding for environmental services. An EU regulatory framework should clearly allow that low-carbon practices of farmers can be remunerated through multiple channels and that public income could be added to private remuneration. CIBE welcomes several options, such as voluntary carbon markets, and welcome guidance to access such markets. In the end, this should be positive in terms of remuneration for farmers.
Read full response

Response to Revision of the plant and forest reproductive material legislation

13 Jul 2021

As stated in the inception impact assessment, the current legislation has proven its success in guaranteeing the identity, performance, quality and health of all PRM. Moreover, it has contributed to fostering an internationally competitive PRM industry. For sugar beet in particular, the conditions laid down in Council directive 2002/54/EC on the marketing of beet seed ensure that both the requirements regarding seed quality and the provisions for ensuring identity are met, guaranteeing sugar beet growers in the European Union quality sugar beet seed. To maintain this guarantee of quality seed, the current provisions of that directive, be it regarding the conditions for certification (at both crop and seed level) or the marking (official label and supplier’s label of information on the packing) should be maintained, as should the VCU (Value for Cultivation and Use) and DUS (Distinct, Uniform and Stable) systems for the registration of sugar beet varieties.
Read full response

Meeting with Katherine Power (Cabinet of Commissioner Mairead Mcguinness) and COMITE EUROPEEN des FABRICANTS de SUCRE and Agriculture & Progress Platform

15 Jan 2021 · Taxonomy draft delegated act

Meeting with Filip Alexandru Negreanu Arboreanu (Cabinet of Commissioner Adina Vălean) and Comité du commerce des céréales, aliments du bétail, oléagineux, huile d'olive, huiles et graisses et agrofournitures de l'U.E. and

29 Oct 2020 · EU Biofuels Chain

Beet growers urge impact assessment before pesticide reduction targets

31 Jul 2020
Topic — The EU is revising rules to reduce pesticide risks and promote alternative pest control.
Message — CIBE wants the EU to evaluate existing farming practices before concluding that current methods are failing. They demand comprehensive impact assessments regarding the feasibility and economic costs of pesticide reduction targets. They also seek a regulatory framework that supports the development of new genomic techniques.123
Why — These changes would preserve farmer productivity and ensure access to effective crop protection technologies.45
Impact — Environmental health may decline if growers switch to higher volumes of foliar pesticide sprays.6
Read full response

Meeting with Catherine Geslain-Laneelle (Cabinet of Commissioner Janusz Wojciechowski)

18 May 2020 · • the situation of the sugar beet sector confronted with the COVID-19 crisis • the contribution of the sector to the new EU strategies • the importance of consistencies between these strategies and the other EU policies

Response to Farm to Fork Strategy

13 Mar 2020

CIBE welcomes the general objective of the Farm to Fork Strategy towards sustainable food systems that encourages the production and marketing of European sustainable agri and food products, promotes developing sustainable labelling by integrating environmental and social aspects, including the origin indication for certain products, and, as part of the European Green Deal, tackles carbon-intensive, biodiversity/environment-damaging imports. CIBE highlights that an increase in environmental and climate ambitions of the CAP should go hand in hand with providing appropriate funds for their implementation; the budget dedicated to the future CAP and Farm to Fork Strategy must match these ambitious challenges. Developing sustainability performance is not limited to environmental performance and must not neglect the social and economic aspects. It must include economic conditions: farms and agricultural production must be economically viable and resilient in the long term. Agriculture and in particular sugar beet cultivation have an important role to play in the Farm to Fork Strategy, provided they remain viable! Therefore, CIBE requests that impact assessments, including economic impact assessments, be carried out for all decisions made in the Farm to Fork Strategy. European sugar beet growers have always favoured technological progress, improvement and transformation of their practices. The Farm to Fork Strategy should recognize the results already achieved with regards to environmental sustainability. CIBE supports further improvement and optimization of the use of Integrated Pest Management and Good Practices, including the reduction of hazardous pesticides, under the condition that objectives and timing be agreed with growers, that technical deadlocks are avoided and that it goes hand in hand with the increasing availability of effective and affordable alternative and innovative tools, namely low risk PPPs, biocontrol and unequivocal support for NBTs. CIBE supports improving further the environmental sustainability, combining ambition with innovation and realism. The awareness among sugar beet growers has always been there, above all they need trust, support for research and development, support for investments and solid science and risk-based regulatory framework. CIBE also stresses the necessity of consistency of the Farm to Fork Strategy with international trade and the EU trade policy: while the EU further increases the requirements to be met by its farmers and the gap in standards and in competitiveness is increasing with third partners, it is crucial to agree on ambitious and solid rules regarding trade and sustainability in all our trade relations to ensure food security, a level playing field and fair competition for EU farmers, to restore growers’ confidence in 21st century EU trade policy and to avoid decline and abandonment of sugar beet cultivation in the EU. Growers as well as society cannot accept that products that would be illegal to produce in the EU would be allowed and imported in the EU. The statement included in the Green Deal “Imported food that does not comply with relevant EU environmental standards is not allowed on EU markets” must materialize in practice to all trade partners and should include not only the imported product itself, but also the way it is produced, i.e. the inputs used to produce it. Our detailed contribution is attached.
Read full response

Meeting with Catherine Geslain-Laneelle (Cabinet of Commissioner Janusz Wojciechowski)

29 Jan 2020 · CAP, Green Deal

European beet growers advocate for risk-based endocrine disruptor rules

10 Jul 2019
Topic — This fitness check assesses the coherence and effectiveness of EU endocrine disruptor regulations.
Message — The group suggests evaluating chemicals based on actual risk rather than potential hazard. They also want to study the economic impact before banning agricultural chemicals.12
Why — This would help maintain the availability of pesticides for the sugar sector.3
Impact — Environmental groups lose the safety benefits provided by strict hazard-based chemical bans.4
Read full response

Beet growers demand more accurate pesticide risk measurements

24 Dec 2018
Topic — The consultation concerns establishing harmonised indicators to measure pesticide risks across the EU.
Message — The organization requests that indicators include actual usage data like dosages and mitigation measures. They argue sales statistics are insufficient and emergency authorisations are currently evaluated too simplistically. They also call for lower weighting on special authorisations where risks are already managed.123
Why — This would prevent their farming practices from being unfairly categorized as high-risk.4
Read full response

Meeting with Phil Hogan (Commissioner) and

12 Jul 2018 · Business discussion

Meeting with Nathalie Chaze (Cabinet of Commissioner Vytenis Andriukaitis)

26 Oct 2017 · Neonicotinoids

Meeting with Cecilia Malmström (Commissioner) and COMITE EUROPEEN des FABRICANTS de SUCRE

7 Sept 2017 · Mexico and Mercosur FTAs negotiations

Response to Increase of the quantitative limit for exports of out-of-quota sugar in the 2016/2017 marketing year

13 Feb 2017

CIBE - International Confederation of European Beet Growers CIBE is fully in favour of this regulation to open as soon as possible a second tranche of out-of-quota sugar exports for the MY 2016/17. Indeed, it is crucial on the eve of a new beet campaign season 2017/18 and of the quota system abolition as from the next MY that all operators, including growers, be in a position to enter the new era with a balanced EU market and be in a position to react to market drivers, including world market drivers. CIBE notes that world sugar markets are currently buoyant and bullish. CIBE recalls that: - out-of-quota sugar is exclusively used for industrial non-food outlets and for export outside the EU; - the current estimate of ending stocks of out-of-quota sugar is largely sufficient to cover these outlets; - these stocks will be added to the ending stocks of quota sugar at the end of MY 2016/17, without distinction so as to take into account of the end of quotas. CIBE notes that these potential out-of-quota sugar exports will not harm the supply of quota sugar for the food industry. In addition, CIBE points out that: - according to the EU estimate, consumption of sugar for food in the EU would continue to fall in MY2016/17 for the 4th consecutive year; - the EU sugar market is fully (duty free - quota free) open to ACPs and LDCs and grants large duty free or reduced duty access to a wide range of preferential partners which are ready to supply the EU market if needed; - Inward Processing Regime is available for exports of EU processed products with high sugar content if needed. CIBE stresses that preventing operators to respond to markets drivers would be in total contradiction with the Single CMO regulation and the decision to end the quota system as from 1st October 2017. Therefore, CIBE calls for a rapid adoption of this regulation.
Read full response

Meeting with Maria Asenius (Cabinet of Vice-President Cecilia Malmström) and COMITE EUROPEEN des FABRICANTS de SUCRE

3 Mar 2016 · Trade & sugar