The Commission presents a biennial report on the Special Framework of assistance (SFA) for traditional ACP suppliers of bananas. This report covers 2007 and 2008 and is accompanied by a Staff Working Document. To recall, the SFA for traditional ACP suppliers of bananas was created in 1999 in order to help those suppliers to adjust to changing international competition and expired in December 2008. It targeted 12 traditional banana-supplying countries: Belize, Cameroon, Cape Verde, Côte d'Ivoire, Dominica, Grenada, Jamaica, Madagascar, St Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Somalia and Suriname. In total, some EUR 376 million was granted under the SFA scheme. The objectives were either improving the competitiveness of traditional ACP banana producers, or, if this were no longer feasible, supporting diversification.

Market information : The European Union (EU) is the largest consumer and importer of bananas in the world. Compared to 2007, in 2008, 5 416 449 t. (referred to below as t.) of bananas were consumed in the EU (+3.5%), of which 4 848 889 t. (+3.7%) were imported from third countries and 567 560 t. (+2.3%) were of domestic origin. Since 1 January 2006, the EU applies an MFN tariff of €176/t. to banana imports, in line with the EU's commitments to move from its previous quota system to a tariff-only regime. Statistics monitoring the impact of the new regime on imports show that it maintains market access conditions, with increased imports.

Budget line 2007 : 12 Financing Agreements were signed in early 2008 for EUR 28.67 million. Some 42% of the funds are dedicated to improving the competitiveness of the banana export sector in 4 beneficiary States and 58% of the funds to diversification in 8 beneficiary States.

Budget line 2008 : 12 Financing Agreements were signed in early 2009 for EUR 29.23 million. Some 37% of the funds finance activities improving the competitiveness of the banana export sector in three beneficiary ACP States. Some 63% of the funds are dedicated to diversification in the remaining beneficiary States.

Evaluation: the Commission states that it made efforts to complete the adaptations required in ongoing SFA projects and reviewed/programmed those approved in 2006, 2007 and 2008. Actual disbursements from all SFA programmes increased from EUR 21 million in 2006 to EUR 46 million in 2008. Disbursement of all programmes will be completed in 2012 (apart from ex post evaluations and audits).

Some progress towards improved competitiveness and increased diversification : the programmes made substantial contributions to achieving the objectives:

improved competitiveness in Belize, Cameroon, Côte d'Ivoire and Suriname, although support could not compensate for the hurricane damage in Jamaica in 2005, 2007, and 2008; improved capacity for successful economic diversification in Eastern Caribbean and for agricultural diversification (where monitored) in Somalia, Cape Verde and Madagascar, although the full impact cannot yet be quantified.

In the competitiveness-oriented countries, the banana sector is now more closely aligned to market requirements and EU environmental policies and standards, establishing the basis for sustainable business development. The implementation of recommendations made in the previous report has resulted in notable improvements in the timeliness and quality of implementation in Belize, Jamaica and the Windward Islands. This aspect was less relevant for both Cameroon and Côte d'Ivoire, which benefit from more diversified sources of finance and thus were less dependent on support.

In countries where diversification is a priority, efficiency suffered from a lack of focus, many very small investments, averaging around EUR 1 to EUR 1.5 million, with limited potential for real impact. Furthermore, linkages between the various initiatives are still limited and fragile.

The external evaluation recommended that ACP countries committed to diversification should review the contributions of their SFA portfolios to their economic diversification agenda at a macro level. This should include an assessment of the cohesiveness of such programmes and facilitate upgrading of each country’s diversification strategy, with clear priorities including the quantity and sources of financial resources needed to support and institutionalise key activities.

In order to improve both monitoring and evaluation of the impact of diversification programmes, it also recommended improving the logical frameworks and their use as programme management tools to ensure that implementing agencies are continually working towards expected results and actively measuring agreed indicators.

Sustainability of ACP banana exports still fragile : the prospects for sustained competitiveness are largely dependent on:

the outcome of ongoing international trade negotiations, and the capacity of countries to achieve further productivity gains and cost savings.

The strategies pursued by some countries have lacked a realistic assessment of challenges created by the international market situation and future potential implications of the conclusion of WTO and ongoing bilateral trade negotiations.

Results can be delivered where countries:

demonstrate strong commitment to adjust to international developments; have favourable agronomic characteristics; and already have highly commercially structured sectors.

The Commission concludes that challenges remain for banana-exporting countries. They need to address them together and with international support. The international community, including the EU, has attached greater importance to assisting developing countries in increasing their competitiveness of the whole economy and making better use of international trade opportunities. EU Aid for Trade does not focus on just individual sectors. One prerequisite for success is to draw and update multi-stakeholder strategies for developing trade and integrating into the international trading system. The SFA's implementation over ten years allowed recipient countries to plan strategically and will remain a useful reference point for future action.

COM(2010)0103
EUR-Lex

SEC(2010)0331
EUR-Lex

This document represents a Communication from the Commission giving the biennial report on the Special Framework of Assistance (SFA) for traditional ACP suppliers of bananas. It is recalled that b anana imports in the EC have traditionally been regulated by a quota-system with strong preferential treatment for bananas from Africa, the Caribbean and the Pacific (ACP). There were several disputes on this matter in the 1990s and early 2000s. Various changes were then made to the quota system (in 1998 and in 2001), which was finally replaced by a tariff-only system starting from 1 January 2006.

In order to help the twelve traditional ACP banana suppliers in coping with the modifications to the trade arrangements, a Special Framework of Assistance (SFA) was put in place in 1999, financed by a dedicated budget line.

This framework provides technical and financial support for specific projects presented by the countries concerned, based on a long-term strategy previously agreed with and approved by the Commission. The individual country allocations are calculated on a yearly basis, taking into account two criteria, namely the competitiveness gaps observed in comparison with third country suppliers and the importance of banana production to the economy of the ACP country concerned. The annual budget has gradually decreased from EUR 44.5 million in 1999 to EUR 30.7 million for 2006. Between 1999 and 2003 the allocation key was conceived in such a way as to provide more support to those countries suffering from a larger competitiveness gap and with a higher share of the banana sector in total GDP. As of 2004, a maximum reduction of 15% has to be applied to national allocations in performing the calculations, the rate being lower for those countries that have achieved competitiveness gains.

In 2005 and 2006 the budget line amounted to EUR 34.5 and EUR 30.7 million, respectively. As regards the competitiveness gap, an evaluation concluded that the choice of CIF prices as a tool to measure competitiveness has drawbacks, in that it does not necessarily fully reflect the competitiveness gap between the ACPs and the Most Favoured Nation (MFN) suppliers.

Improving Competitiveness: p rojects targeting the competitiveness of banana exporters have continued in those five countries that supported this objective during 2002-2004. For 2005 and 2006, these programmes include the renewal of plantations in Belize, Cameroon, Jamaica and Suriname. In Jamaica plantations were severely hit by hurricanes in both 2004 and 2005. In Belize, Jamaica and Suriname new varieties of bananas that are more resistant to diseases such as Black Sigatoka, are being introduced. The programmes also include investments to acquire EUREGAP and/or ISO 14001 quality certification in Belize, Cameroon, Ivory Coast, Jamaica and Suriname. Although programmes supporting the competitiveness of banana exports took up almost 50% of the available allocation in 2005; the figure fell in 2006 to 39%, which is similar to the percentages for the period from 2000. All of the five countries supporting this objective have been able to maintain or increase the quantities of bananas exported to the EC during the period 2003 to 2006.

Diversification: t he diversification objective was opted for by seven countries in 2005 and 2006 (Cape Verde, Dominica, Grenada, Madagascar, Somalia, Saint Lucia, and Saint Vincent and the Grenadines). These countries have either stopped exporting or seen their banana exports substantially reduced between 1990 and 2000. None of them have been able to recover markets during the period 2003 to 2006. The activities planned cover a wide range of economic sectors and types of investments, but all aim to provide (ex-) banana farmers and workers access to alternative sources of income. The programmes also have a longer duration, typically four to five years, as they take longer to achieve their full impact.

Commitments and Disbursements: o verall the implementation of the programmes remains delayed. Only 48 % of all funds allocated have been committed to works, supplies, and service or grant contracts and only 35% have been disbursed. For the programmes decided between 1999 and 2005, therefore, some EUR 150 million remain to be contracted (RAC) and some EUR 186 million remain to be disbursed (RAL). The Commission expects to be able to recover some of the lost ground in the coming two years. In the evaluation of the SFA, the comparison of the financial execution of diversification and competitiveness activities in terms of speed shows that the latter have done better. The analysis of programme execution to date shows that the long-term efforts required from the banana sector do not sit easily with the requirement under the Council Decision to have the support programmes decided annually. In addition, the need to adjust the programme modalities after the introduction of the new Financial Regulation has temporarily curtailed the activities and therefore the impact of the programmes. However, most operational problems encountered did find a solution in 2005. This contributed to the strong acceleration of the programmes in 2006.

The paper discusses the impacts of the SFA on the banana sector in each country . In those countries where, for the period preceding SFA investments, the banana sector had grown or was stable, the SFA has had an impact in strengthening productivity and efficiency and reducing cost. It points out that in the Windward Islands, after an initial focus on programmes partially aimed at enhancing the competitiveness of the banana sector, there has been a progressive shift to projects clearly oriented towards diversification. Although the weaknesses of the Windward banana sector and the increasing level of competition on the EC market were probably underestimated when the initial strategy was drafted, this change has been the result of a gradual awareness in the Windwards of the need to change the thrust of economic development in the islands. However, despite its general decline since the 1990s, the Windward banana sector remains present on specific EC markets. A key element of this relative success of the Windward Islands strategy for their banana sector has been its orientation towards the fair trade market. Although the SFA has supported the banana sector in general, so far no project has been put forward to directly support that aspect of their strategy.

Conclusions: in its analysis of the state of play with the implementation of the SFA, the Commission recognises the difficulties encountered in the implementation of this instrument. However, most of the operational problems encountered in relation to the Financial Regulation were resolved in 2005, which has contributed to the strong acceleration of the programmes in 2006. Given the complexity of the scheme and the constraints faced by most beneficiaries, the recommendation is to reinforce assistance both for the technical bodies in charge of implementation at local level and for the final recipients . Such technical support has to focus on administrative and procedural problems and obviously requires highly qualified expertise. As regards the allocation of the budget between beneficiary countries, the evaluation highlights the drawbacks of using CIF prices to measure the competitiveness gap. However, as the SFA will in any event come to an end in 2008, it is not in the interest of good administration to consider any change in this area at this point in time.

Finally, in terms of impacts of the SFA on the socio-economic situation of the banana sector and the countries concerned, the evaluation showed that it is still too early to measure the impacts of SFA on the diversification of the economies concerned. The impact was generally satisfactory for programmes targeting the banana sector where the conditions for its competitiveness were reasonably favourable. However, the SFA could also draw lessons from other relatively successful experiences, such as the Windward conversion to the fair trade market, as an opportunity for smaller-scale enterprises to survive in global market competition.

COM(2006)0806
EUR-Lex

PURPOSE : to present the biannual report (2004) from the Commission on the special framework of assistance for traditional ACP suppliers of bananas.

CONTENT : in this report, the Commission recalls that in 2003, world banana production was approximately 69 million tonnes (68 million tonnes in 2002). The largest producer is India (23.8% of world production), while the main exporters are Ecuador, Costa Rica, the Philippines and Colombia, which in 2002 controlled together 63% of world banana exports.

In 2002, almost 95% of total ACP banana exports were sold to the EU. In 2003, banana imports from the Ivory Coast and Cameroon accounted for almost 63% (61% in 2002) of total ACP imports into the EU.

Banana imports into the European Union have traditionally been regulated by a quota system with strong preferential treatment for bananas from Africa, the Caribbean and the Pacific (the so-called ACP countries). The EU's banana import regime has not changed over the period 2002-2004. Following EU enlargement on 1 May 2004, the volume of imported bananas has been increased by an additional quantity for the period 1 May-31 December 2004 in order to ensure a sufficient supply of bananas to consumers in the enlarged Community.

The EU obtained two waivers in the WTO to cover the preferential import arrangements for the ACP. The first covers the tariff preference for the import of bananas for the ACP under the Cotonou Agreement until 1 January 2008. The second covers the reservation of quota C for the ACP until 1 January 2006.

Due to the verification exercise under Article 164 of the Financial Regulations, there has been a considerable delay in the implementation of projects during the past two years. The provision of this article allows for decentralised management in most countries concerned. The implementation situation should thus improve at the beginning of 2005. In parallel to the reduction coefficient of 15% to the level of assistance made available and its proportional reduction to the increase in competitiveness observed, implementation and programming shifted from supporting competitiveness to supporting primarily diversification. This trend has continued in the period 2002-2004.

In 2002, an evaluation of the implementation of Regulation 856/1999/EC was commissioned and carried out. Its recommendations, e.g. multi-annual programming to reduce administrative steps and consequently simplify the administrative process, were found not to correspond to the requirements of the SFA Regulation and the Financial Regulation. Other reports have been commissioned, drafted and carried out for other donors. The Commission is currently in the process of examining their conclusions and recommendations with a view to further simplifying and accelerating the implementation of the SFA in the context of the existing regulatory framework.

EUR-Lex
COM(2004)0823

COM(2002)0763
EUR-Lex

EUR-Lex
COM(2001)0067

Regulation 1999/856
OJ L 108 27.04.1999, p. 0002

EUR-Lex
COM(1999)0098

OJ C 128 07.05.1999, p. 0014-0067
T4-0053/1999

T4-0053/1999

Debate in Parliament

A4-0012/1999
OJ C 128 07.05.1999, p. 0002

A4-0012/1999

PE228.208/A

PE228.208/B

EUR-Lex
SEC(1998)1718

10460/1/1998
OJ C 364 25.11.1998, p. 0014

10460/1/1998

PE226.842

OJ C 210 06.07.1998, p. 0284-0326
T4-0390/1998

T4-0390/1998

A4-0237/1998
OJ C 210 06.07.1998, p. 0016

A4-0237/1998

PE224.578/DEF

PE226.680/DEF

EUR-Lex
OJ C 108 07.04.1998, p. 0091
COM(1998)0005

EUR-Lex
COM(1998)0005