Communication from the commission to the council and the european parliament
Evaluation of the Impact of the SFA
Download 0.53 Mb.
|
- Navigate this page:
- Relevance of the country strategies under the SFA
- Impacts of the SFA on the banana sector
- Impacts on the diversification of economies and social conditions
- Conclusions and recommendations
Evaluation of the Impact of the SFAGeneralAn external evaluation of the scheme was carried out between the end of 2005 and the beginning of 20066. It was possible to scrutinise interventions in nine ACP countries (Belize, Cameroon, Ivory Coast, Dominica, Grenada, Jamaica, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines and Suriname), as these countries saw in general in the period 2003-2005 a strong acceleration in project activities, whereas the three remaining beneficiaries (Cape Verde, Madagascar, and Somalia) had not yet started any investment under the SFA at the beginning of the study. Relevance of the country strategies under the SFAThe medium- to long-term strategies (as expressed in the Banana Strategy Papers), which were agreed with the beneficiary ACPs and which form the basis of the programmes agreed annually with their governments, have proven their relevance. Those States opting to support the competitiveness of their banana sectors have been able to maintain or increase the quantity of bananas exported to the EC, including in the first few months of 2006. Those that have chosen to support diversification have seen their banana exports (the Windwards were exporting some 191 000 tonnes altogether in 1996 and only 79 000 tonnes in 2004) and market share further eroded in the EC in the period 1996-2004. A special case is Jamaica, which supports both objectives. These strategies were also found to be coherent with the development strategies of the respective ACPs and the support strategies agreed with the Commission in the Country Strategy Papers. On the whole, the 2003-06 strategies (basis for the financing agreements, under which investments are launched), reflect in a more coherent way the national and international changes and the future prospects for the Community banana market. This consideration is all the more valid for those countries that are resolutely aiming to improve the competitiveness of their national banana sectors: Cameroon, Ivory Coast, Belize and Suriname.
Impacts of the SFA on the banana sectorIn 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. This is the case for both Cameroon and Ivory Coast. Here, the sector is increasingly concentrated and relies on the presence of medium to large production companies and/or trade companies (multinationals or not). The SFA has had an appreciable impact on production and the organisation of the sector, which was already favourable. For Cameroon, data show that the average yield rate grew by 13.9% when comparing the period 1994-98 with 2002-04; exports increased by 20% between 1998 and 2003; the number of workers employed per 1000 tonnes decreased from 50.78 in 1998 to 40.77 in 2003; and for one specific company the costs of the packed product shrank by 12.8% between 2000 and 2005. In Ivory Coast, substantial progress had already been made in the period 1991-99, with exports going from 118 400 tonnes produced on a surface area of 12 000 hectares in 1991 to 217 500 tonnes produced on a surface area of 5 493 hectares in 1999. Further improvements were seen in the period 1999-2004, with exports reaching 229 000 tonnes, produced on a surface area of 5 120 hectares in 2004. Accordingly, the yield rate was 9.9 tonnes per hectare in 1991, 39.6 tonnes per hectare in 1999, and 41.7 tonnes per hectare in 2004. The adaptation of SFA strategies to the context and structural characteristics of the sector has had good results both in Belize and in Suriname, where the SFA has played a fundamental role in the revival of the sector. In Belize, following hurricane Iris, which devastated all plantations in 2001, production went from 472 boxes per acre in 2001 up to 760 boxes per acre in 2004. In Suriname, following the crisis and closure of the plant in 2002-03, the production yield fell from 15.7 tonnes per hectare in 2001 to 14.5 tonnes per hectare in 2004, but recovered strongly to 34.8 tonnes per hectare in 2005. Moreover, the improvement in competitiveness (measured by total export trends and positioning on the Community market), obtained partly thanks to SFA investment to increase productivity (measured in terms of rising outputs and work productivity, along with declining production costs), has had positive consequences for employment in the banana sector, in particular for Cameroon, Suriname and Belize. In Jamaica, the SFA has been used to support the competitiveness of those companies remaining in the banana export sector, through a well-designed technical assistance strategy focusing on the commercial quality of the product. Its first effects can be seen in the evolution of the competitiveness indicators. The SFA has also promoted activities (financed under both the competitiveness and diversification objectives) aimed at supporting producers in their shift to the local market and to the plantain banana, with quite successful results. 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. It is worth noting the relationship between the SFA and commercial quality. In Jamaica, Belize and Cameroon, during the period evaluated, SFA funds were devoted to a commercial strategy aimed at obtaining EUREPGAP (European retailers standard based on environmental and social criteria) and ISO14001 (environmental management) Certification. Certified quality is an increasingly important requirement of the retail trade, especially on the Community market. These investments, financed by the SFA with a view to obtaining certification, have had a positive impact in improving both the environmental aspects and socio-economic working conditions in the plantations, in addition to strengthening the sector's position in the marketing chain. Impacts on the diversification of economies and social conditionsAlthough it is still early for an overall evaluation, the impact study reported mixed results from the diversification activities financed in the period 1999 to 2004. On the whole, however, it can be stated that the diversification activities under the SFA seem to have had a social impact, as the social projects and infrastructures they financed aimed to improve the living conditions of the population affected by the decline of the banana sector. Conclusions and recommendationsIn 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. The Commission will continue to make all efforts to further accelerate execution while ensuring the quality of the interventions. 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.
Notes on Boosting Productivity and Diversification tables: 1 IRRIGATION AND DRAINAGE 2 RENEWAL OF PLANTATIONS 3 PHYTO-SANITARY TREATMENT 4 FERTILISER 5 PACKING 6 COLD STORAGE 7 AGRICULTURE / RURAL DEVELOPMENT 8 ROADS 10 MICRO-CREDIT 11 SOCIAL PROJECTS 12 TRAINING 13 INSTITUTIONAL SUPPORT 14 TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE 15 PRIVATE SECTOR 16 ICT 17 TOURISM 18 WATER 19 INFRASTRUCTURE 20 ENVIRONMENT 21 ENERGY 22 CABLEWAY 1OJ L 108, 27.4.1999, p. 2. 2OJ L 190, 23.7.1999, p. 14. 3Commission Decision C/2005/1303 4Commission Decision C/2006/1137 5COM(2004)823 final 6CRIS No of contract 2005/102-529. EN Directory: pub -> ECD ECD -> Commission staff working document ECD -> Table of contents I instruments Error: Reference source not found ECD -> Table of annexes annex I: Glossary 4 ECD -> En commission of the european communities brussels, 12. 12. 2008 com(2008) 853 final annex annex II to VIII ECD -> Report from the commission to the european parliament and the council european community safa programme aggregated information report ECD -> Report from the commission european community safa programme ECD -> Commission staff working document ECD -> Commission of the european communities brussels, 24 2008 ECD -> Commission staff working document ECD -> Communication from the commission to the european parliament, the council, the european economic and social committee and the committee of the regions Download 0.53 Mb. Share with your friends:
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||