AGREEMENT IN THE FORM OF AN EXCHANGE OF LETTERS BETWEEN THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC COMMUNITY AND BARBADOS, BELIZE, THE PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF THE CONGO, FIJI, THE COOPERATIVE REPUBLIC OF GUYANA, THE REPUBLIC OF THE IVORY COAST, JAMAICA, THE REPUBLIC OF KENYA, THE DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC OF MADAGASCAR, THE REPUBLIC OF MALAWI, MAURITIUS, ST CHRISTOPHER AND NEVIS, THE REPUBLIC OF SURINAM, THE KINGDOM OF SWAZILAND, THE UNITED REPUBLIC OF TANZANIA, TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO, THE REPUBLIC OF UGANDA AND THE REPUBLIC OF ZIMBABWE ON THE GUARANTEED PRICES FOR CANE SUGAR FOR THE 1984/85 DELIVERY PERIOD

ENTRY INTO FORCE: 1 JULY 1984 – 30 JUNE 1985

Letter No 1 

Brussels, . . . . . . 

Sir, 

The representatives of the ACP States referred to in Protocol 7 on ACP sugar annexed to the Second ACP-EEC Convention, and of the Commission on behalf of the European Economic Community, have agreed, pursuant to the provisions of the said Protocol, to submit to their competent authorities for approval, to be the subject of an exchange of letters between the ACP States concerned and the Community, the following: 

For the period 1 July 1984 to 30 June 1985 the guaranteed prices referred to in Article 5 (4) of the Sugar Protocol shall, for the purpose of intervention within the terms of Article 6 of that Protocol, be: 

(a) for raw sugar: 44,34 ECU per 100 kilograms;

(b) for white sugar: 54,68 ECU per 100 kilograms.

These prices shall refer to sugar of standard quality as defined in Community legislation, unpacked, cif free out European ports of the Community. The introduction of these prices in no way prejudices the respective positions of the Contracting Parties in respect of the principles appertaining to the determination of the guaranteed prices.

Although retroactivity is not provided for in respect of the 1984/85 prices, it is agreed that this year's decision does not prejudice the position of the ACP States in relation to retroactivity in any future negotiation in accordance with Article 4 (3) of the Sugar Protocol. 

It was noted that, in the view of the ACP States, the problem of ocean freight costs remained an outstanding and pressing matter which required urgent consideration and resolution. 

I should be obliged if you would acknowledge receipt of this letter and confirm that this letter and your reply constitute an Agreement between the Governments of the abovementioned ACP States and the Community. 

Please accept, Sir, the assurance of my highest consideration.

On behalf of the Council of the European Communities 

Letter No 2 

Brussels, . . . . . . 

Sir, 

I have the honour to acknowledge receipt of your letter of today's date which reads as follows: 

'The representatives of the ACP States referred to in Protocol 7 on ACP sugar annexed to the Second ACP-EEC Convention, and of the Commission on behalf of the European Economic Community, have agreed, pursuant to the provisions of the said Protocol, to submit to their competent authorities for approval, to be the subject of an exchange of letters between the ACP States concerned and the Community, the following: 

For the period 1 July 1984 to 30 June 1985 the guaranteed prices referred to in Article 5 (4) of the Sugar Protocol shall, for the purpose of intervention within the terms of Article 6 of that Protocol, be: 

(a) for raw sugar: 44,34 ECU per 100 kilograms; 

(b) for white sugar: 54,68 ECU per 100 kilograms. 

These prices shall refer to sugar of standard quality as defined in Community legislation, unpacked, cif free out European ports of the Community. The introduction of these prices in no way prejudices the respective positions of the Contracting Parties in respect of the principles appertaining to the determination of the guaranteed prices. 

Although retroactivity is not provided for in respect of the 1984/85 prices, it is agreed that this year's decision does not prejudice the position of the ACP States in relation to retroactivity in any future negotiation in accordance with Article 4 (3) of the Sugar Protocol. 

It was noted that, in the view of the ACP States, the problem of ocean freight costs remained an outstanding and pressing matter which required urgent consideration and resolution. 

I should be obliged if you would acknowledge receipt of this letter and confirm that this letter and your reply constitute an Agreement between the Governments of the abovementioned ACP States and the Community.' 

I have the honour to confirm the agreement of the Governments of the ACP States referred to in this letter with the foregoing.

Please accept, Sir, the assurance of my highest consideration. 

For the Governments