ARCHIVES HISTORIQUES 
DE LA COMMISSION 
 
 
 
COLLECTION RELIEE DES 
DOCUMENTS "COM" 
 
 
 
 
COM (83) 193 
 
 
 
Vol. 1983/00 83 
  
 
Disclaimer  
Conformém ent au règlement (CEE, Euratom) n° 354/83 du Conseil du 1er février 1983 
concernant l'ouverture au public des archives historiques de la Communauté économique 
européenne et de la Communauté européenne de l'énergie atomique (JO L 43 du 15.2.1983, 
p. 1), tel que modifié par le règlement (CE, Euratom) n° 1700/2003 du 22 septembre 2003 
(JO L 243 du 27.9.2003, p. 1), ce dossier est ouvert au public. Le cas échéant, les documents 
classifiés présents dans ce dossier ont été déclassifiés conformément à l'article 5 dudit 
règlem ent. 
In accordance with Council Regulation (EEC, Euratom) No 354/83 of 1 February 1983 
concerning the openi ng to the public of the historical archives of the European Econom ic 
Community and the European Atomic Energy Communit y (OJ L 43, 15.2.1983, p. 1), as 
amended by Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1700/2003 of 22 September 2003 (OJ L 243, 
27.9.2003, p. 1), this f ile is open to the public. Where necessary, classified documents in this 
file have been declassified in conformity with Article 5 of the aforementioned regulation.  
In Übereinstimmung mit der Verordnung (EWG, Euratom) Nr. 354/83 des Rates vom  1. 
Februar 198 3 über die Freigabe der historischen Archive der Europäischen  
Wirtschaftsgemeinschaft und der Europäischen Atomgem einschaft (ABI. L 43 vom  15.2.1983,  
S. 1), geändert durch die Verordnung (EG, Euratom) Nr. 1700/2003 vom 22. Septem ber 2003  
(ABI. L 243 vom 27 .9.2003, S. 1), ist diese Datei der Öffentlichkeit zugänglich. Soweit  
erforderlich, wurden die Verschlusssachen in dieser Datei in Übereinstimmung mit Artikel 5  
der genannten Verordnung freigegeben.  
COMMISSION 
OF THE 
EUROPEAN  COMMUNITIES 
General  Secretariat COM(83)  195 final 
Brussels,  12 April  1983 
FOR OFFICIAL  USE  ONLY 
COMMUNICATION  FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE  COUNCIL 
Joint ACP-EEC  re-examination  of the  conditions  for implementing  the 
guarantee  referred  to in  Article  1 of Protocol  7 on ACP  sugar annexed 
to the Second ACP-EEC  Convention 
COM(83)  193 final 

COMMUNICATION  FROM THE COMMISSION  TO THE COUNCIL 
Joint ACP-EEC  re-examination of the conditions for  implementing  the 
guarantee  referred to in  Article  1 of Protocol  7 on ACP  sugar  annexed 
to the Second  ACP-EEC  Convention 
1. Article  2(2) of Protocol 7 on ACP  sugar  (1) states that: 
" The conditions for  implementing  the guarantee  referred to in  Article  1 
shall be re-examined  before the end of the seventh year of  their 
application  ." (2). 
Article  8 of the Protocol provides that the re-examination  shall  take place 
within the agreed  institutional  framework,  i.e. the  ACP-EEC  Sub-Committee 
on Sugar. 
2. The re-examination was  forma,!  ly opened  by the Contracting Parties to the 
Protocol on  19 February  1982.  On that occasion it was  agreed  that the 
Commission  and/représentât ives of the ACP states  concerned  should carry 
out the re-examination and report on the  results. 
3. The ACP-Commission  discussions covered all of the Protocol  except  its 
Article  l^which was regarded as  falling  outside the  scope  of the re-examination 
and the results  have been discussed informally by the  Member  stales in the 
ACP Working  Party  (3). 
4. Because  the re-examination covered,  inter  alia,  the question of re-allocations 
the Working  Party's discussions also included the  cases  of India and the 
Ivory Coast.  These  cases  are the subject of a separate  Commission  submission 
to the Counci  I. 
5. The Commission  believes that a  distinction  should be  made between,  on the 
one hand,  the points  arising  from the re-examination on  which  it 'îs desirable 
that the Contracting Parties to the Protocol should formally record  their 
agreement  in a manner  which  binds both sides and, on the other, points  which 
either have given  rise to differences of  approach  between  the Community  and 
the ACP States  concerned  or ere for noting by the Contracting Parties. 
6. Accordingly, the  Commission  proposes  that the  outcome  of the re-examination 
as a whole  should be recorded by the Contracting Parties to the Protocol 
in the form of the attached Joint Declaration. The follow-up to  such a 
agreed Declaration  would  be an exchange  of letters  which  would  form the 
subject of a further  Commission  submission to the Council in due ;ourse. 
' 1) OJ No L  347, 22.12.1980,  p. 144 
i.e. before  28 February  1982 
1 ' Docs 10485/82  of 4.11.1982  and 4362/83  of 18.1.1983 INTERNAlPOCUMENT 

- 2 -
7. The Commission  therefore  recommends  the Council to  approve 
the attached Joint Declaration and to  invite  the ACP Contracting 
Parties  to the Protocol to  agree  that it represents the  outcome 
of the re-examination and that it should be now incorporated in 
the proceedings of the  next meeting  of the  ACP-EEC  Sub-Committe 
on Sugar. 
Financial  implications 
8. The Joint Declaration  would  be implemented  within the  framework 
of the common  organization of the  sugar  market  and would  not, 
therefore, give  rise to additional expenditure. 

Joint Declaration  by the  Contracting Parties  to Protocol  7 on ACP  sugar 
for incorporation  in the  proceedings  of the ACP-EEC  Sub-Committee  on Sugar 
I. The Contracting Parties  to Protocol  7 on ACP  sugar annexed  to the  Second  ACP-EEC 
Convention, having  completed  the re-examination required  by Article  2(2) of the 
I 
Protocol,  have agreed  as follows: 
(1) that without prejudice  to points (2) and (3)  below,  the results  of the 
re-examination  do not  require  any changes  to be made in the  text of 
the Protocol  at the  present time; 
(2) that  the provisions  of the  Protocol  shall  apply to the  Republic  of Surinam 
with effect  from 1 July 1983; 
(3) that with effect  from the date of the  exchange  of letters  referred  to in 
point (6) below St Kitts-Nevis  and Anguilla  shall be eligible  in principle 
for any shortfalls  which may be  re-alloqated  under the provisions  of the 
Protocol  and that with effect  from the same  date the ACP members of the 
Protocol  shall be eligible  in principle  for any  shortfalls  by St  Kitts-
Nevis and Anguilla  which may be  re-allocated; 
(A) that  a further re-examination  of the  conditions  for implementing  the guarantee 
referred  to in  Article  (1) of the  'Protocol  shall  take place before  1 January 
1988; 
(5) that  the agreements  recorded  above  are without prejudice  to the  existing 
positions  of the  Contracting Parties  on the  question  of the  possible retro­
active application  of the  guaranteed  prices  for ACP  sugar in future  yea rs; 
(6) that effect  shall be given to points  (1) - (A)  above via an  exchange  of 
letters  between  the Contracting Parties  to the  Protocol. 
II. The views of the  Contracting Parties  on specific  aspects  of the  Protocol  are 
as follows: 
Article 5 (A) 
1. It was  noted  that there  had been considerable discussion  in recent years  between 
the Community  and the ACP  States  on the way. in  which "all relevant  economic 
factors"  were to be  taken into account.  The Community,  referring  to Article  1(2) 

- 2 -
(" The implementation of  this Protocol is  carried  out within  the framework 
of the management  of the  common  organization of the sugar market which, 
however,  shall in no way prejudice the  commitment  of the  Community  under 
paragraph 1.") and to  Article  5.1 ("White  or raw cane sugar  shall  be marketed 
on the Community  market at  prices  freely  negotiated  between  buyers and 
sellers."),attached  particular  importance, as relevant economic  factors, 
to the level  of the  intervention  price  decided for  Community  producers 
and to the need to be able to market ACP sugar commercially in the 
Community.  The ACP guaranteed  price  cannot . be lower than the  inter­
vention  price  for Community  raw sugar because it would then be outside 
"the price  range obtaining'within the  Community"  and equally it cannot 
be higher without a serious  risk that refined  ACP sugar could not 
be disposed of .on the  Community's  internal  market without  some form of 
Community  subsidy. Such a subsidy could not be regarded by the  Community 
as compatible'with  the-common  organization of the sugar market. 
2. The ACP States considered  that.this  situation  has' effect  of preventing 
any real negotiation and that it is  still necessary by one  means  or another 
to take account of all relevant economic  factors,including  those which bear 
directly  on the revenues of  their  sugar producers. Their major concern was 
that, although the Protocol states that the ACP guaranteed  price  is to be 
within the range of  prices  obtaining  within  the Community,  the tendency had 
been for the  Community  to establish  a link between  the ACP guaranteed  price 
and the lowest  intervention  price  for Community  raw sugar; in the view of 
the ACP States  this was not in accord with the idea of a  "negotiation"  of 
the guaranteed  price. 
The ACP States  also stated  that in  their view, if the guaranteed  price 
fixed within  the price  range obtaining  within  the Community  was not 
sufficiently  remunerative for  their producers,  special  measures  might be 
required  outside the  Protocol.  The Community  reserved its  position  on this 
poi nt. 

3 
3. The Contracting Parties  have agreed: 
- that the ACP  States  will make  available  to the  Commission  a memorandum 
on the factors relevant  to the  fixing of the ACP  guaranteed  price,  in 
good time before  the Commission  submitted proposals  to the  Council  on 
Community  sugar  prices  and on the  directive  for negotiation with  ACP 
States; 
- that the ACP  States  will have  an opportunity  to present their  views 
to the appropriate  Commissioner; 
- that it will be open to the ACP  States,if they consider  it  necessary, 
to present further observations  to the  Chairm'an  of the EEC  Council  of 
Ministers  after  the Commission  has made  its proposals  to that Council. 
r 
III. The Contracting Parties  have taken note of the  following: 
Article 7(1) 
4. The Commission  and the ACP  States  have agreed  that the "necessary 
additional  period  for delivery"  will normally  be interpreted  as the 
whole of the  period up to, but not  beyond,  the end of the  next delivery 
period following that  in which the shortfall  occurred. 
Article 7(2) 
5. The Commission  has agreed  that all  Article  7(2)  quantities should  be 
promptly re-allocated. 
Article 7(4) 
6. The ACP  States  emphasized  that in their view shortfalls  arising  under 
the provisions  of Article  7(3) of the  Protocol should  be promptly  re­
allocated  between  the States referred  to in  Article  3(1), in consultation 
with those States.  The Commission  considered,  however,  that it must retain 
a discretion  to decide  whether  and when  such shortfalls  should  be re­
allocated.  Such a discretion  is implicit  in the  text of Article  7(4).