Agriculture & Food

Sindicalistii germani considera ca romanii si bulgarii care lucreaza in industria agroalimentara germana au fost redusi la conditia de sclavi industriali.
 
Revista franceza Nouvel Observateur a publicat acum cateva luni un articol foarte critic despre dumping-ul social practicat de firme daneze si olandeze care opereaza in regiunea Bremen din Germania.

Pana de curand, Germania a fost cunoscuta ca exportator major in industria automobilelor si a masinilor-unelte, Franta detinand in Europa pondeera cea mai importanta in exporturile de produse agricole si alimentare. Din 2007 insa, exporturile agro-alimentare ale Germaniei au depasit pe cele ale Frantei, mai ales in domenii cum ar fi exportul de preparate din carne de porc, vita sau pui.

Francezii ii acuza pe germani de concurenta neloiala, fapt evident in domeniul industrializarii carnii de porc. In 2012 francezii au pierdut astfel 3.8 % din piata mondiala, cu toate ca aceasta se afla in plina crestere. Desi competitiva in domeniul cresterii animalelor, Franta pierde teren in industria mezelurilor si semi-preparatelor din porc, deoarece Germania practica masiv dumping-ul social. Acesta consta in apelul masiv al firmelor la mana de lucru interimara din strainatate, platita cu salarii intre 3 si 5 euro pe ora, in timp ce in Franta muncitorii sunt platiti cu 10-12 euro pe ora.

Astfel, reporterii revistei N.O. au putut constata ca in regiunea Bremen intre 75 si 90 la suta dintre muncitori sunt straini, in principal romani sau bulgari. Acestia nu au oficial dreptul de munca in Germania, fiind angajati potrivit Directivei Bolkenstein pe contract de prestari servicii, ca « detasati » ai unor firme din Romania sau Bulgaria.

La fabrica daneza Danish Crown, liderul european al preparatelor din carne de porc, muncitorii germani cu vechime sunt platiti intre 2500 si 3000 de euro brut pe luna, in timp ce angajatii romani castiga intre 700 de euro (femeile) si 900 de euro (barbatii) pentru 10-12 de ore de munca zilnic, de cele mai multe ori in schimbul de noapte. Muncitorii romani sunt cazati in dormitoare comune, in camere de 10 sau 14 paturi, amenajate in foste magazine de confectii – « privilegiu » pentru care platesc intre 150 si 175 de euro pe luna fiecare. Situatia lor sociala a ajuns atat de grava incat biserica si opinia publica din zona a inceput sa protesteze impotriva exploatarii lor in conditii de sclavie industriala, asa cum sustin sindicalistii germani.

Aceste rele tratamente sunt posibile deoarece, spre deosebire de Franta sau Anglia, in Germania nu exista inca un salariu minim garantat care sa ii protejeze pe angajatii romani. Mai grav, in urma reformelor sociale din timpul lui Gerhard Schröder (2004-2008), Germania are astazi 22.2 la suta din salariati incadrati in categoria celor cu venituri precare (proportia este de 6.7 la suta in Franta). Aproximativ 7.4 milioane de germani sunt angajati in «mini-jobs » fiind platiti cu numai 400 de euro pe luna. Pentru asemenea bani, niciun tanar german nu mai doreste sa munceasca in abatoarele de cosmar din nord, unde romanilor li se pretinde sa sacrifice 600 de porci pe ora, sau 7000 de porci pe zi pentru enorma suma de 1 cent per porc.

O asemenea exploatare salbatica a romanilor in strainatate nu ar fi avut loc daca, de la revolutie incoace, guvernele succesive din Romania ar fi impus o marire constanta a salariilor in vederea reducerii diferentelor dintre nivelul de salarizare a romanilor si media europeana. In aceeasi perioada, vecinii nostri cehi, maghiari, slovaci sau polonezi au gasit cai de crestere a salariului mediu, care sa se apropie acum, in majoritatea cazurilor, de 1000 de euro pe luna. Spre deosebire de acestia, adevarati « fericiti ai tranzitiei », romanii sunt in continuare fortati de conditiile vitrege de acasa sa plece sa lucreze in strainatate, ajungand in situatii asemanatoare cu cele descrise mai sus. In ceea ce ii priveste pe bulgari , veniturile insuficiente i-au impins pe multi sa-si dea foc in fata cladirilor guvernului din Sofia. Ambele guverne, atat cel roman cat si cel bulgar, practica in schimb dumping-ul fiscal * si prefera sa isi impinga cetatenii sa lucreze aiurea prin Europa, in loc sa ii forteze pe oamenii de afaceri locali sa le asigure conditii de munca si de salarizare decente.

*Romania are o cota unica de impozitare de numai 16%, in timp ce Bulgaria incearca sa atraga investitori straini cu o cota unica de impozitare de 10% (sursa : The Economist). Aceste politici fiscale sunt in contradictie cu ceea ce se intampla astazi in majoritatea tarilor Uniunii, unde se revine la impozitul progresiv pe venit.

By Brian Gardner Whatever dreams environmentalists may have of a world fed by a chemical-free organic agriculture, the hard reality is likely to be something very different. Laudable though the green farming paradigm may be, it is certain that a largely increased and more prosperous world population will only be fed by increased agricultural output. Such increase can only be achieved by the increased inputs of fertiliser, crop protection measures and better technique.

The proposal to address the issue of indirect land use change (ILUC) in European biofuel policy has advanced in the European Parliament, as MEP Corinne Lepage of France released her draft report in the Environment Committee. ILUC refers to unintended consequences of making biofuels—for example, if a policy preference for corn ethanol creates incentives for farmers to replace carbon-absorbing forests with cornfields, or to raise food prices by diverting corn to fuel. Some biofuels—often called “second generation”—made from non-edible crops like jatropha and algae that can thrive on currently non-productive land, avoid many of these ILUC effects.

Lepage’s proposal will incorporate specific ILUC “factors” into the sustainable criteria of the EU’s Renewable Energy Directive and Fuel Quality Directive. This will account for differences in biofuels performance, while the Commission suggested to cap at 5 percent the share of conventional biofuels (biodiesel and bioethanol) in transport under the Renewable Energy Directive. Public subsidies for these biofuels will end by 2018.

To promote second-generation biofuels, the report calls for a carveout for woody biomass and agricultural residues. Lepage sought to protect prior investments, so she would delay until 2018 the ILUC factors on each member state’s share of biofuel consumption in the year 2010—provided that the grandfathered biofuels result in greenhouse gas reductions of at least 45 percent.

The grandfathering would benefit biodiesel, which accounted for 80 percent of European biofuel production in 2010. According to some news reports, however, bioethanol performs better on Lepage’s ILUC factors than biodiesel, evening out the advantage.

The Sustainable Aviation Fuel Users Group (or SAFUG, a consortium of airlines and aerospace firms of which Boeing is a part) has called for policymakers to consider mechanisms that reduce ILUC effects of biofuels. SAFUG has called for the EU to limit the share of food crop-based fuels; its members are committed to biofuels that do not displace food crops. SAFUG also calls for the European Parliament to establish incentives for biofuels that are certified as low-risk for ILUC effects, using a model like the Low Indirect Impact Biofuels (LIIB) standard. SAFUG members also support incentives for biofuels made from waste, algae, and ligno-cellulosics — but no further incentives for feedstocks.

The aviation industry is committed to developing high-efficiency, second-generation sustainable biofuels. These fuels can reduce the sector’s carbon footprint, provide a more diverse (and thus resilient) supply of energy, and develop a new, environmentally progressive industry. And as the industry develops these fuels, it is taking care to ensure they avoid ILUC effects.

For example, KLM Royal Dutch Airlines took a bold step for sustainable aviation last month by launching the first in a series of “Optimal Flights” using a 777 between New York and Amsterdam. Boeing is proud to be their partner in this effort that combines renewable fuels with advanced technology. This means not only using sustainable biofuels, but other smart technologies and concepts to improve the airplane’s operational efficiency while saving fuel and reducing carbon and noise emissions. Basically, we’re taking multiple flight efficiency projects and rolling them into one program to create the most environmentally progressive flight possible.

The Sustainable Aviation Fuel Users Group (or SAFUG, a consortium of airlines and aerospace firms of which Boeing is a part) is of the view that, because of the potential negative impact, ILUC must be addressed in government policies promoting the production of sustainable fuels. SAFUG has called for policymakers to consider mechanisms to lower the contribution of high ILUC risk biofuels and create incentives for sustainable biofuels that have been certified as low risk of ILUC. Any legislation addressing ILUC should consider the possibility of project-level mitigation approaches, including, but not limited to, the Low Indirect Impact Biofuels (LIIB) methodology currently under development by Ecofys, EPFL and the World Wildlife Fund (WWF).

This month, a WFP-EU photo exhibition on ‘Building Resilience’ is on show at Dublin Airport. The focus of this exhibition is the link between climate change, nutrition and hunger. These photos tell the stories of the challenges faced by some of the world’s most vulnerable people as they struggle to feed their families while adapting to climate change. Indeed, climate change is a hunger risk multiplier, threatening to undermine hard-won gains in eradicating hunger and poverty. Projections indicate that unless considerable efforts are made to reduce people’s vulnerability to natural disasters, by 2050 up to 20% more people will be at risk of hunger due to changing climates, and child malnutrition is anticipated to be 20 % higher compared to a no-climate change scenario (IASC, 2009).

 

In addition,  the poorest people are also those that suffer most from climate change as climate shocks force the poor to adopt emergency coping strategies – cutting down on meals and eating cheaper, less nutritious food, withdrawal of children from school, cuts in health spending – all of which damage the long-term health of entire societies.  In this light, the European Union and WFP have joined forces to help those worst affected by these climatic changes. With the European Commission’s DG for Humanitarian Aid and Civil Protection (ECHO) and EuropeAid, WFP is helping to build resilience among these communities, meeting their food needs today, and providing the support that will allow them to look after themselves in the future.

 

On the 15th and 16th of  April the Government of Ireland and the Mary Robinson Foundation – Climate Justice are hosting an international conference to stimulate debate on these linked challenges, and to inspire innovative thinking and solutions.  The conference ‘Hunger – Nutrition – Climate Justice – 2013’ will gather almost 100 smallholder farmers and vulnerable people living on the frontlines of climate change. They will share their experiences of growing food in a world impacted by climate change and present the solutions they are pioneering in their fields. The voices of women in particular will be amplified as they are primarily responsible for both farming and feeding their families in many parts of the world (for more information please visit http://www.irishaid.gov.ie/what-we-do/dublin-conference/)

 

Climate change is not only a future concern; the time to act is now. It is one of the defining challenges of our times, whose impact and implications will be global, far-reaching and largely irreversible. It is already increasing the risk of exposure to hunger, malnutrition and food insecurity among the most vulnerable. WFP is adapting its response to helping the hungry in contexts affected by climate change (see Climate Change and Hunger – Responding to the Challenge). The European Commission too, with its recent Communications on ‘Building Resilience to Food Crises’ and ‘Enhancing Maternal and Child Nutrition’ is placing itself at the centre of the debate on how to reduce hunger and improve nutrition against a backdrop of increasingly frequent and intense natural disasters. In this light, next week’s ‘Hunger – Nutrition – Climate Justice’ conference, within the scope of the Irish Presidency of the European Council is a crucial opportunity to further this impetus. It will seek to inspire innovative solutions to support vulnerable farmers and their families not just to survive, but to thrive, and to provide the food we need to nourish our growing population.

Vincent Paulger, WFP Brussels

 

Les plus démunis risquent de devoir se restreindre encore plus alors qu’ils n’ont pas grand-chose ! Est-ce possible ? Réunis en sommet vendredi 8 février, les dirigeants de l’Union ont voté une diminution draconienne de l’aide alimentaire européenne pour la période 2014-2020. La politique d’austérité qu’ils infligent  au budget européen une baisse historique de 3%  entraîne dans son sillon une coupe budgétaire de 40% du Programme européen d’aide aux plus démunis (PEAD) par rapport à l’enveloppe 2007-2013. Depuis le Parlement européen a tapé sur la table. Par ailleurs la procédure d’examen de la proposition de la Commission progresse au sein des commissions du Parlement européen..

La commission Emploi et Affaires sociales vient, le 20 mars, d’examiner les amendements au rapport de la députée irlandaise Emer Costello. La Commission des budgets a rendu son avis : pas d’amputation du budget, ni son maintien au détriment d’un autre poste.

Créé en 1987, le Programme européen d’aide aux plus démunis (PEAD) avait à l’origine une double raison d’être : piochant dans les stocks d’intervention de produits bruts institués par la politique agricole commune (PAC), le PEAD a fourni directement en denrées alimentaires les associations venant en aide aux démunis, tout en servant d’auxiliaire à la régulation des marchés agricoles. Dès 2006, du fait de  la quasi suppression des surplus agricoles provoquée par la réforme de la PAC, la distribution des aides alimentaires a pris un nouveau tournant. Un prélèvement du budget de la PAC a permis à chaque Etat membre l’achat de produits finis et leur distribution aux associations. Venir en aide aux plus démunis est ainsi devenu la mission exclusive du programme.

Le Programme tel qu’il existe aujourd’hui est condamné à disparaître dès la fin de l’année. Suite à la saisie de la Cour de justice de l’UE par l’Allemagne en 2011, les juges ont considéré que le financement des achats de denrées alimentaires par le PEAD devait désormais trouver sa source dans la politique sociale de l’Union. Pervenche Berès, présidente de la commission Emploi et Affaires sociales déplore cette décision : « L’article 9 du traité de Lisbonne introduit l’idée que chaque politique doit être jugée à l’aune de sa dimension sociale. Un juge plus volontaire aurait pu en tirer des arguments pour rester dans une logique de contribution de l’agriculture à dimension sociale ».

Dès le 1er janvier 2014, le PEAD sera donc remplacé par le Fonds d’aide aux plus démunis (FEAD), annexé au Fonds social européen (FSE). En l’état, les modalités d’obtention du FSE impliquent un co-financement obligeant ces bénéficiaires à trouver au moins une seconde source de financement (nationale, publique, privée, etc.). Afin d’éviter une difficulté supplémentaire aux associations caritatives, « le Parlement européen refuse que ce fonds d’aide aux plus démunis se plie à la logique du FSE. C’est une proposition très forte du rapport » de Mme Emer Costello, auteur du rapport sur le FEAD au Parlement européen.

L’inquiétude  des associations caritatives grandit ! Pour la période 2014-2020, 300 millions d’euros par an vont être attribués au FEAD, un montant très en-deçà des 500 millions d’euros annuels distribués aux Etats membres entre 2007-2013. C’est plus qu’une  douche froide pour les associations d’aide aux plus démunis dont la pérennité des stocks alimentaires dépend de ce fonds. Ces milliards d’économies que l’on demande aux populations les plus fragiles d’Europe, c’est incompréhensible ! Pendant des mois, ces associations ont multiplié les actions pour le maintien du montant de l’aide aux plus démunis. Parmi ces initiatives, le « Air food project »,  qui depuis fin 2012 incite les citoyens à simuler un repas sans la moindre miette au fond de l’assiette et à poster les vidéos de ces festins fictifs sur le net. Rappelons que selon en 2010 la menace de pauvreté et d’exclusion pesait sur 23,4% de la population de l’Union, ce risque ne cesse d’augmenter, et aurait atteint le quart de la population. Les collectes, les appels aux dons se multiplient : depuis 2008 on constate une augmentation de 40% du nombre des personnes accueillies en France par les associations. Il n’y a plus de réserves !

La décision des 27 quant à la sévère baisse de l’aide alimentaire contredit l’objectif de lutte contre la pauvreté et l’exclusion sociale prévue par la Stratégie 2020 pour l’Europe. A cette fin, elle prévoit une action coordonnée de l’UE en « fournissant des moyens financiers ». Doit-on constater  une schizophrénie aigüe des institutions européennes ? La Commission européenne part du principe que l’aide alimentaire n’est pas une aide à l’inclusion sociale. Or, pour les banques alimentaires, c’est le premier contact qui permet d’être au réel de l’inclusion de ces populations, de la connaissance de leurs besoins.

Le Parlement européen, qui a déjà annoncé qu’il ne voterait pas le budget européen « en l’état », sans avoir obtenu des avancées importantes sur le plan procédurale et institutionnel en matière d’adoption, d’exécution et de ressources propres pour alimenter le budget européen. Dés maintenant se  pose la question de son véto lors du vote en session plénière en juillet prochain. Dans ce cas de figure, le budget ne pourrait pas rentrer en vigueur et pour le Parlement européen ce serait le retour au statu quo ante situation qui présente des avantages et des inconvénients. A ce stade, le Parlement européen semble ferme dans sa volonté de combattre en faveur de la réévaluation du PEAD et lui seul est en mesure de le faire. L’annonce du gouvernement français, de compenser à l’euro prés le manque au niveau national, ne suffit pas.

Nea say reviendra très prochainement  sur ce dossier pour faire le point .

Pour en savoir plus :

      -. Dossier de Nea say sur l’aide alimentaire aux plus démunis http://www.eu-logos.org/eu-logos-nea-recherche.php?q=aide+alimentaire+demunis&Submit=%3E

 

Classé dans:Dignité humaine, DROITS FONDAMENTAUX

The enthusiasm of the European Union and the United States for the forging of a bilateral trade agreement, while it may be good news – largely for multinationals involved in transatlantic trade – bodes ill for the future of multilateral trade liberalisation. Such agreements are as important for what is excluded as what they may include. In no sector is this more important than in trade in agricultural products. Both Europe and north America have massively expensive agricultural protection policies much of which they will no doubt strive to preserve in any eventual agreement.
The labels give the game away: ‘bilateral trade agreement (BTA)’, ‘preferential trade agreement (PTA)’  and ‘regional trade agreement (RTA)’; the new EU-US arrangement is to be called the ‘Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership(TTIP)’. The PTA  is probably the most revealing; trade between the two partners is preferential and by implication excludes anyone else except on special , carefully controlled terms.
The TTIP probably marks the  pinnacle of a marked retreat from the multilateral trade liberalisation achieved in the numerous GATT rounds which have taken place since WWII. For agriculture, the most important of these was the 1994 Uruguay Round, which concluded in the 1994 Marrakech agreement. This forced both Brussels and Washington to scale back excessive agricultural protectionism and begin the process of (slowly) winding down their gross agricultural support policies. Prior to the UR, while steadily scaling down industrial tariffs, neither the EU nor the US had been prepared to make any concessions on agricultural trade. Despite the post Marrakech progress, import charges on agricultural products worldwide still average out at over 60 per cent, while average industrial tariffs are little more than 3 per cent.
The lack of progress in multilateral trade negotiations, most notably in the now barely breathing Doha Development Round, has undoubtedly been an important factor in the growth of bilateral and regional free-trade agreements. These have proliferated  since 1995.  More than 60% of the trade in Asia is now likely to be taking place within the framework of such   arrangements. The World Trade Organisation records that there were 186 such agreements in force in 2005, compared with 50 just prior to the completion of the Uruguay Round in 1994, less than 25 in 1985, and only thirteen such agreements in 1975. The share of world trade now taking place within BTAs is estimated by the WTO to have risen from 22 per cent  in 1975 to over 50per cent in 2005. The effect on the agricultural export trade of the EU and the US  would suggest  an element of retaliation in the latest EU-US moves. As such, they bode ill for the future of global trade liberalisation.
It is not without significance that the refusal of Brussels and Washington to give significant concessions on market access for agricultural products has been one of the major obstacles to achievement of any progress in the Doha trade round.  The losers from the growth of bilateralism will be competitive, but unsubsidised, agricultural exporters in both developing and developed countries. <21/03/2013>

While most of the major items in the European Commission’s CAP reform package which the European Parliament has amended and now agreed will do nothing to improve the focus of Europe’s farm policy, there is one item which it approved which contains the germ of eventual radical reform. It is the proposal to begin capping payments to individual farm business at €150,000 a year. Were it to be approved by Council it would achieve two things: it would mark the beginning of the end for the policy of subsidising farm businesses which, on a rising world market, do not need subsidising and it would provide substantial savings which could be re-directed into specific rural environmental measures.
The rest of the Parliament’s CAP reform agreement is irrelevant twiddling. It is in fact no reform at all, but merely a recipe for perpetuation of the current policy under some vague green camouflage – with added bureaucracy. There are some outstanding examples of irrelevancy. Take for example the proposal  that member states should spend 25 per cent of their 2014-2020 CAP rural development funds on environment and climate measures. Unlike the €45 billion a year that will still be spent on irrelevant farm income payments, this works out to peanuts. Twenty five per cent of €12 billion divided by 27 (member states) would just about pay for a few extra coppices or bumble bee havens.
It would not be so bad if the parliamentarians were not so pleased with their paltry efforts -epitomised by ComAgi’s  Mairead McGuinness :“We are deepening the environmental delivery and linking 30 per cent of payments to environmental measures is a major re-orientation … ,“She claimed. “On direct payments we have attempted to target greening measures on where they will have a real effect. We decided on a more realistic introduction of ecological focus areas to reflect farming realities.” Hardly.  There are so many get-out clauses and leeways for national interpretation that there is little more pressure on landholders for environmental compliance than in the present policy.
A real reform would convert the direct income scheme into a proper social income and structural policy to maintain rural communities, while paying all landholders to provide specific environmental services. An important first step would be capping the direct income payment excess to provide the money for this more radical policy. <14/03/2013>

 

A Bankwatch competition for ideas for EU funds investments that benefit the sustainable development of European communities could offer inspiration for EU and national decision makers. At the final award ceremony in Brussels, the winners told us about their ideas and how EU funding could benefit their countries.

Posted on the Bankwatch blog by Patrycja Romaniuk, EU funds campaigner in Poland

While negotiations over the EU budget 2014-2020 are still in limbo with many Members of the European Parliament ready to veto the deal from two weeks ago many decisions on the nitty-gritty details of how exactly the (less than) one trillion euros will be spent are yet to come.

Coverage so far of the “big-numbers game” of EU budget negotiations left little media space for the voices of those who are to benefit of EU funded projects. Yet, for those who listen carefully, these voices are not only loud and clear, they can also help make decisions that are in the interest of European citizens and communities.

Such was the intention of Bankwatch’s Better Ideas competition, that in the second half of 2012 invited ideas for projects that best contribute to the sustainable development in people’s communities. The outcome stands in sharp contrast to a supposed EU fatigue: Not only the number of project ideas that we received but also their quality surprised our national campaigners. There is, for example:

• the community garden scheme in Stredokluky (CZ) that promises to create jobs in a rural area, provide local, ecological food and restore land and biodiversity;
• or the center for eco-passive building technologies in Kock (PL) that would offer consulting, training and production of eco-passive building technology and would employ around 15-20 people.

And the list goes on (pdf).

This week, the winners of the national competitions as well as jury members from all participating countries joined us in Brussels for the final award ceremony. It was inspiring to see all these people from across central and eastern Europe who care about the future of their communities, countries and “their” Europe.

We asked some of them to tell us what inspired them to take part in the contest, how they see their project’s potential to receive funding and what they would like to tell national and EU decision makers. See for yourself:

---

---

Read more

See a list of all winning projects of Bankwatch’s Better Ideas competition (pdf)

Read our positions on greening EU funds

Related articles

• Continued EU budget battle could sacrifice clean energy investments and clog economic recovery (bankwatch.blogactiv.eu)
• EU budget update: Are Europe’s leaders serious about taking the green shirt off all of our backs? (bankwatch.blogactiv.eu)
• A Map of Clean, Green Spending from the EU Budget (bankwatch.blogactiv.eu)

A potential cooperation between the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development and the agro-corporation Monsanto has thankfully not come to fruition. The case highlights the difficulties for a large development bank to reach farmers on the ground.

posted on the Bankwatch blog by Pippa Gallop, Bankwatch’s research coordinator

You may remember that in November 2012 Bankwatch reported on the EBRD’s plans to undertake a USD 40 million ‘risk-sharing facility’ with none other than the notorious Monsanto. The EBRD was exploring a project to provide financing so that medium-large farmers and distributors in Russia, Ukraine, Serbia, Hungary, Bulgaria and Turkey could buy Monsanto’s seeds and agro-chemicals in installments, without Monsanto losing money if they got into debt.

Well, after a lively reaction from groups around the world, including a letter signed by 158 organisations, other individual letters, meetings with the bank, a protest in Serbia, and questions in the German and Slovene parliaments, we’re glad to be able to report that the EBRD has confirmed that the project is not going ahead. So has the EBRD admitted that Monsanto is an unsuitable recipient of European public development support? Not exactly.

Here’s an extract from the EBRD’s response to an enquiry on the status of the project:

“Please be advised that, in this particular transaction, the EBRD and Monsanto were unable to find a satisfactory project structure for financing. Each institution will continue to explore other opportunities in order to provide farmers and distributors with adequate and time-appropriate financing, which we recognize to be one of the key challenges to increase agricultural productivity in the Bank’s region of operations.” (Source: Email communication with the EBRD)

This highlights one of the problems for such a large institution as the EBRD, that it is difficult to reach individual farmers without intermediaries, because the bank does not have the on-the-ground infrastructure or local knowledge to provide thousands of loans for a few hundred or thousand euros. This is a problem that needs to be addressed by the region’s governments and farmers’ unions if the EBRD is not to pick such unsavoury business partners again in the future.

So, a great outcome for now, but we’ll be keeping our eyes and ears open in case the EBRD makes such ill-advised moves again.

Read more on the EBRD on the Bankwatch website

Gruyère cheese made in France is to now have holes, being different from the trademark Swiss Gruyère. A three year long battle had ensued about who owned the rights to produce the cheese. The makers of both the French Gruyère and the Swiss Gruyère claimed the mark of quality, the Appellation d’Origine Contrôlée, an official mark presented to regional produce which possessed their own uniqueness and were manufactured through traditional methods. The French, wanting their cheese to be recognised far and wide, vied for the newer hallmark, Appellation d’Origine Protegée which the Swiss protested to because Gruyère originates from a Swiss town in the Alpine hills. The French Gruyère cheese is matured near France’s border with Switzerland and so did not qualify for an Appellation d’Origine Protegée, but the European Commission recently announced the protection of the title “Gruyere” through the introduction of the requirement that French Gruyère cheese must contain holes and packaging must state the French origin with clarity. Earlier on the Swiss Gruyère singularly profited from a similar protection, granted by a bilateral accord in between the EU and non-member Switzerland. Australian and New Zealand producers, along with the milk sector in America opposed the move to chart the French Gruyère as an individual product.

The current wrangle among EU agriculture ministers over the post-2014 agricultural budget is merely the latest act of the endless CAP fantasy which has been running since the early 1960s. It reflects the continual patching up of a policy which was fatally flawed from its very beginning. The CAP began as an attempt to keep small farmers small by fiddling with the markets for agricultural products and thus artificially inflating prices. Even a sixth form economics student could have pointed out that such an objective could not be achieved by such means. It just makes large farmers larger and more greedy for more land on which to increase their share of the state-fuelled bonanza. Small farmers stayed small – and poor. Thirty years later, the penny dropped: maintaining the rural population could only be done by  paying farmers directly to stay on the land. Having finally made this startling discovery, Commissioners and farm ministers of the 1990s then compounded the essential lunacy by coupling what were in effect income subsides to production objectives. As a result, overpaid large farmers got bigger and pushed the much beloved small farmers out of markets not only for cereals, meat and dairy products, but also for the basis of their production: the land itself. Having learnt little, Commissioners and ministers are still at it. The latest instalment of the saga involves the ‘rationalisation’ of the income subsidy system  which mercifully has largely replaced the monstrous cash guzzler of the old market manipulation based policy. Farmers now selling most of their products in open markets largelyfree of official surplus buying and export subsidisation are still heavily rewarded by the state for just being farmers by straightforward subsidy payments based on the area of their land. These payments range from a mere €164 a hectare in Portugal to a monstrous and irrelevant €590 in Greece. The average payment for the EU27 works out at around €260 a hectare. And as far as the taxpayer is concerned, this change has done nothing to reduce the total bill. The EU agricultural budget is currently running at over €50 billion a year- two and half times the total of the 1990s. So what are the 27 ministers and their henchmen in the Agriculture Council now arguing about? A plan by the European Commission to harmonise the payments into one equal payment to be paid at the same rate from the Arctic Circle to the Hellespont  and west to the Atlantic  coast of Ireland. A perfectly reasonable proposal one might have thought. But no, because of course, this would mean that not only would the payment per farmer fall substantially in some countries, but so to would the amount which each country’s exchequer gains from  the Brussels funds. The ministers of course have long since totally abandoned the political principle which the CAP is supposed to enshrine: the ability to maintain incomes and therefore rural populations  in the least favoured areas of the Community. They also appear to be ignoring the implicit undertaking of the Council when the direct subsidy system was first born in the early 1990s, that such subsidies were only intended to be transitory. The implication then was that they would be phased out when the agricultural industry had absorbed the shock of adapting to the world market in the wake of the partial reform of the CAP forced on the Community by the  1994 WTO multilateral liberalisation agreement. Thus what the Agriculture Council should be considering now is not how to continue spending 50 to 60 billion a year on farm subsidies not only until 2020 or indeed  for all eternity, but rather how they could be phased out by the end of 2014-20 financing period. <12/11/2012>

by Natalia Alonso

Energy ministers must set out a renewables path for Europe that does not come at the expense of millions of families in developing countries, who are struggling to feed their children, says Oxfam

Biofuels are pushing up food prices and driving up to 60 per cent of the large-scale land deals taking place across the world. Yet, despite striking evidence, Europe continues to overlook the devastating impact of its biofuels policy on disadvantaged people and communities. Earlier this week, the European Commission had the chance to show that it is finally facing up to the reality of biofuels, but it missed the target once again. In its new blueprint on the post-2020 strategy for renewable energy, the commission remained silent on the effect Europe’s biofuels policy is having on food security in developing countries.

The European Union is failing to learn from the negative effects of the current 2020 strategy – with its 10 per cent binding target of renewable energy in transport – which will be largely met through biofuels produced from food crops. It is worrying that the commission now seems to leave the option of a similar target for 2030 open. Biofuels mandates drive food prices up and make them more volatile.

The demand for biofuels to drive our cars diverts food from stomachs to fuel pumps. The knock-on effect is higher food prices, due to the reduced supply of food combined with increasing demand. And food price rises hit the poorest the hardest. Last year, some 10 international bodies – including the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank and United Nations Food and Agriculture Organisation – found the evidence of the link between biofuels policies and increasingly volatile food prices to be so compelling that they recommended that G20 governments abolish all biofuels mandates and subsidies. The EU’s biofuels policies alone could push up oilseed prices by up to 33 per cent, maize by up to 22 per cent, sugar by up to 21 per cent and cereals by up to 10 per cent – between now and 2020 – according to a recent study by the commission’s Joint Research Centre.

Higher and more volatile global prices for agricultural commodities translate into higher and less predictable food prices for billions of people – especially in countries like Yemen, Guatemala and Cambodia; where much of the food sold on local markets is bought or sold on global markets. Even though prices on international markets shoot up, this does not necessarily benefit millions of poor people who make their living from agriculture. The poorest often spend up to 80 per cent of household incomes on food, which means that even slight increases in the cost of food can force families to make agonising choices. Nutrition, health, education, livelihoods and social cohesion can all suffer when prices are high. Missing meals, even for a relatively short period, can affect children for their entire lifetimes.

Biofuels mandates drive land deals which deprive communities of vital land and water. The rush to meet targets for minimum biofuels content in petrol and diesel, within a relatively short timeframe, is a significant driver of the global land rush. And EU biofuels mandates are among the most ambitious. Doing land deals properly takes time: the sheer volume of land required to fulfil European biofuels mandates by 2020 means that the deals are often ‘land grabs’. Communities are usually forced from their land with little or no compensation. Evidence from the International Land Commission suggests that land acquisitions to grow biofuels feedstocks – including soy, sugarcane, palm oil and jatropha – may account for almost 60 per cent of all large-scale land deals across the world in the last decade. The deals cover more than 372,000 square kilometres, or an area bigger than Germany.

The Institute for European Environmental Policy estimates that meeting the EU target for 10 per cent of transport fuels being from renewable sources by 2020 could, if sourced from large-scale biofuel production alone, require up to 69,000 square kilometres of land in developing countries. An area larger than Belgium and the Netherlands combined. Energy ministers, meeting next week in Brussels, have the opportunity to set a renewable energy future for Europe that does not come at the expense of millions of families in developing countries struggling to feed their children. Ministers should provide the commission with the right steer. Existing 2020 EU biofuels mandates should be scrapped and no new target for 2030 should be set.

Natalia Alonso is head of Oxfam International’s EU Office, in Brussels

This comment piece has been published today in the Public Service Europe.

By David Gow

If he hadn’t lost it already after a career in political journalism, Nucleus’ David Gow would be tearing his hair out…

www.nucleus.uk.net
Follow us on twitter!
Like us on facebook!

It was entirely predictable that EU farm ministers would respond to the European Commission’s post 2013 CAP reform proposals by agreeing on a policy direction which would ensure that there can be no radical change in the Union’s €50+ billion a year common agricultural policy.

The most recent meetings of the European Union’s farm ministers have given a pretty clear indication that any changes which may take place in the common agricultural policy are unlikely to be more than cosmetic.