“Better late than never.” With that the participants heaved a sigh of relief in Valencia, Spain after a marathon 24- hour session ending November 16 as the compromise 20-page Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) document emerged to act as a manual on how to tackle global warming and set the tone for a crucial United Nations (UN) climate conference next month in Bali, Indonesia.
Officially unveiling the report in Valencia, UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon pointed out that the IPCC report states that climate change is “unequivocal” and may bring “abrupt and irreversible” impacts.
Fresh from a fact-finding mission to Antarctica and South America, Ban cautioned, “All humanity must assume responsibility for these treasures,” saying, “I come to you humbled after seeing some of the most precious treasures of our planet threatened by humanity’s own hand.” “Let us recognise that the effects of climate change affect us all, and that they have become so severe and so sweeping that only urgent global action will do. We are all in this together - we must work together,” Ban added.
In Brussels, the seat of the European Union, the untiring champion of the fight against climate change, it was hailed as “vital reading for decision makers,” by top EU officials. European Union Environment Commissioner Stavros Dimas said in a statement, “The Fourth Assessment Report is a milestone in our scientific knowledge about climate change and the grave threats global warming poses to the planet.”
Dimas said, “The report’s findings amount to a stark warning that the world must act fast to slash greenhouse gas emissions if we are to prevent climate change from reaching devastating levels. The good news is that it also shows that deep emission cuts are both technologically feasible and economically affordable.”
He added: “This synthesis report is vital reading for decisionmakers everywhere ahead of the UN climate change conference in Bali starting in just over two weeks. It fully supports the EU policy that global warming must be limited to no more than 2ºC above the pre-industrial temperature. The global community must respond to this scientific call for action by agreeing in Bali to launch negotiations on a comprehensive and ambitious new global climate agreement.
Efforts will be needed by all major emitters if we are to have a chance of controlling climate change before it is too late.”
Reiterating its commitment, the European Commission listed the key elements of EU action:- To reduce greenhouse gas emissions by at least 20 percent below 1990 levels by 2020, that will be strengthened to 30 percent reduction in the context of a fair global agreement - A firm target to increase the use of renewable energy to 20 percent by 2020- A broad range of measures to improve energy efficiency by 20 percent by 2020- Further evolution and strengthening of the EU’s emissions trading scheme;- An ambitious limit to CO2 emissions from cars- A framework for introducing Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) in power production- Development of an effective adaptation strategy
Moreover, the United States, which has earned the wrath of climate change campaigners for not doing enough, did participate along with nearly 150 countries to nod the compromise report through after five days of haggling.
Rajendra Pachauri, an Indian scientist who heads IPCC warned that even if global emissions are curbed and the present levels of CO2 in the atmosphere stayed at the same level there would be a rise between 0.4 and 1.4 metres of the present day sea-levels simply because water expands as it warms.
“If you add to this the melting of some of the ice bodies on Earth, this gives a picture of the kinds of issue we are likely to face,” Pachauri said in post-publication comments on the report.
The synthesis report forms the final part of “Climate Change 2007”, the IPCC’s report. The other three parts were released earlier this year and covered the physical science of climate change; impacts, adaptation and vulnerability and ways to mitigate climate change.
The IPCC was awarded this year’s Nobel Peace Prize jointly with former US Vice-President Al Gore “for their efforts to build up and disseminate greater knowledge about man-made climate change and to lay the foundations for the measures that are needed to counteract such change”.
Saturday, November 17, 2007
Climate change action gets into fast lane
“Better late than never.” With that the participants heaved a sigh of relief in Valencia, Spain after a marathon 24- hour session ending November 16 as the compromise 20-page Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) document emerged to act as a manual on how to tackle global warming and set the tone for a crucial United Nations (UN) climate conference next month in Bali, Indonesia.
Officially unveiling the report in Valencia, UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon pointed out that the IPCC report states that climate change is “unequivocal” and may bring “abrupt and irreversible” impacts.Fresh from a fact-finding mission to Antarctica and South America, Ban cautioned, “All humanity must assume responsibility for these treasures,” saying, “I come to you humbled after seeing some of the most precious treasures of our planet threatened by humanity’s own hand.” “Let us recognise that the effects of climate change affect us all, and that they have become so severe and so sweeping that only urgent global action will do. We are all in this together - we must work together,” Ban added.
In Brussels, the seat of the European Union, the untiring champion of the fight against climate change, it was hailed as “vital reading for decision makers,” by top EU officials. European Union Environment Commissioner Stavros Dimas said in a statement, “The Fourth Assessment Report is a milestone in our scientific knowledge about climate change and the grave threats global warming poses to the planet.”
Dimas said, “The report’s findings amount to a stark warning that the world must act fast to slash greenhouse gas emissions if we are to prevent climate change from reaching devastating levels. The good news is that it also shows that deep emission cuts are both technologically feasible and economically affordable.”
He added: “This synthesis report is vital reading for decisionmakers everywhere ahead of the UN climate change conference in Bali starting in just over two weeks. It fully supports the EU policy that global warming must be limited to no more than 2ºC above the pre-industrial temperature. The global community must respond to this scientific call for action by agreeing in Bali to launch negotiations on a comprehensive and ambitious new global climate agreement. Efforts will be needed by all major emitters if we are to have a chance of controlling climate change before it is too late.”
Reiterating its commitment, the European Commission listed the key elements of EU action:- To reduce greenhouse gas emissions by at least 20 percent below 1990 levels by 2020, that will be strengthened to 30 percent reduction in the context of a fair global agreement - A firm target to increase the use of renewable energy to 20 percent by 2020- A broad range of measures to improve energy efficiency by 20 percent by 2020- Further evolution and strengthening of the EU’s emissions trading scheme;- An ambitious limit to CO2 emissions from cars- A framework for introducing Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) in power production- Development of an effective adaptation strategy
Moreover, the United States, which has earned the wrath of climate change campaigners for not doing enough, did participate along with nearly 150 countries to nod the compromise report through after five days of haggling.
Rajendra Pachauri, an Indian scientist who heads IPCC warned that even if global emissions are curbed and the present levels of CO2 in the atmosphere stayed at the same level there would be a rise between 0.4 and 1.4 metres of the present day sea-levels simply because water expands as it warms.
“If you add to this the melting of some of the ice bodies on Earth, this gives a picture of the kinds of issue we are likely to face,” Pachauri said in post-publication comments on the report.
The synthesis report forms the final part of “Climate Change 2007”, the IPCC’s report. The other three parts were released earlier this year and covered the physical science of climate change; impacts, adaptation and vulnerability and ways to mitigate climate change.
The IPCC was awarded this year’s Nobel Peace Prize jointly with former US Vice-President Al Gore “for their efforts to build up and disseminate greater knowledge about man-made climate change and to lay the foundations for the measures that are needed to counteract such change”.
Tuesday, November 13, 2007
Gas era set to dawn in India
Ships equipped with re-gasification gear an answer
Power shortages leading to blackouts are already taking their toll on production, and then the cumulative effect is filtering down to export markets. That’s the scene blurring grand visions of making India a manufacturing hub to alleviate poverty, which keeps more than two-thirds of the rural population engaged in a vicious cycle of an agricultural sector dependent on weather unpredictability.
With an economic boom touching nine percent over the last few years showing no sign of slowing down, India’s insatiable hunger for energy has not been matched by a proportionate increase in supply over the years. Estimates point that India’s energy needs are set to grow by 40 percent, moving it from sixth slot to fourth position in the world’s top consuming nations by 2012.
“Cleaner burning and more efficient than coal,” coupled with the fact that tonnes of stranded gas around the world are just looking for a market, natural gas seems to be the answer to the ever-increasing demand for power in the present Indian environs, where the ways and means to provide sustainable and reliable solutions are far from clear.
Government figures show that the country’s domestic gas supply is 65 million standard cubic metres per day, while demand stands at 231 mmscmd and the projections put it to rise to 313 mmscmd by 2011-2012. India’s Planning Commission in its approach paper to its 11th Five-Year Plan that an ongoing sequence since it was launched five decades ago identified that among other factors, “... above all, power supply are not comparable to those prevalent in our competitor countries.”
Warning that, “... this gap must be filled within the next five to 10 years if our enterprises are to compete effectively,” the paper stressed that, today, Indian companies are not asking for state protection but at least, “expect a level playing field.” It may be noted that although industrial units are savvy about their own power plants, the acute lack of feeding fuel remains a major stumbling block. With focus shifting to cleaner industrialisation, there is a gas era ready to come of age, but latest government figures show the country failed to import only a third of the gas it wanted in 2006-2007.
One of the major reasons is the inadequate infrastructure in the country to handle gas imports as only two of the planned four terminals for LNG (Liquefied Natural Gas) re-gasification viz. Shell’s Hazira terminal and Petronet’s Dahej terminal, are operating while the Kochi terminal and the Dabhol are yet to get commissioned. These special terminals are needed as gas is shipped in liquid form and needs to be re-gasified when the ship berths. Lack of such specialised terminals left not only the power sector but also the fertilizer sector literally gasping for gas.
The geo-political situation around the world has cast its long dark shadows on the Indian government’s options to get international pipeline projects like the Iran-Pakistan-India, the Myanmar-India and the Turkmenistan-Afghanistan-Pakistan-India to deliver.
According to tough-talking sector observers, the first one has an American negative influence on it, the second seems to be lost to Chinese efforts, while the third is losing to its preferred sister project moving toward Russia on its journey to the more lucrative market of Europe, giving leverage to Moscow over Brussels in energy matters.
Dashing any hopes of salvaging the Myanmar-India gas pipeline project, the Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Limited, ONGC – Videsh Limited or OVL scrapped the project in the footsteps of the Gas Authority of India Limited, GAIL. R S Butola, Managing Director of OVL said in New Delhi on May 14: “Since Bangladesh has disagreed to our proposal, the project is now becoming a costly affair while China is trying hard to procure gas from Myanmar through a pipeline because the country has been suffering from a huge energy crisis for long.”
He ruled out any further bid to get back the pipeline project without a cost-benefit analysis. Such a delayed scenario for pipelines leaves the door wide open for imports of gas through ports. The Indian west coast is already dotted with ports which have emerged as leading container handlers with overstretched capacity and the time is ripe for the eastern ports of Kolkota, Haldia and Paradeep to take the initiative to grab this golden opportunity to become a hub of gas imports to meet the energy needs of the parent state, and for the onward transport to other parts of the country.
Usually, it will cost around USD 500 million to equip each port with a re-gasification terminal and a number of years of construction before gas starts flowing to consumers, but pundits offer a new pioneering working model showing a simple way out. With tailor-made delivery-driven solutions catering to exponentially increasing demands for gas, there are technologically advanced vessels which have the facility to re-gasify LNG onboard and discharge natural gas into the pipeline system through an “Energy Bridge” process. The time frame for opening the tap to consumers for this unique way of the re-gasification equipped vessels docking at the ports needs just a year from the time the final decision is taken to when work starts to install various discharge points like a buoy (deepwater port), a turret (shallow water port) or quayside.
Moreover, this also takes care of concerns of vocal environmentalists who have been campaigning against new terminals aimed to boosting imports of LNG. One market expert on India predicted that the move can lead to frenzied investment from abroad in Bengal for constructing short delivery pipelines to industrial units across the region. Calling it “the financial backbone of the future for Bengal (an eastern Indian state),” which is a state striving to transform its poor agro-economy into an industry powered financial giant in the coming years, the expert said in Brussels, “The state can contribute with tax rebates during high risk initial phases with applicant shipping companies committing to help in getting gas contracts at affordable prices.” Time will show if the industry and the state can take advantage of this opportunity to agree on terms of development of gas inlets and beyond.
Written for New Europe, the European Weekly on May 19, 2007 - Issue : 730
Power shortages leading to blackouts are already taking their toll on production, and then the cumulative effect is filtering down to export markets. That’s the scene blurring grand visions of making India a manufacturing hub to alleviate poverty, which keeps more than two-thirds of the rural population engaged in a vicious cycle of an agricultural sector dependent on weather unpredictability.
With an economic boom touching nine percent over the last few years showing no sign of slowing down, India’s insatiable hunger for energy has not been matched by a proportionate increase in supply over the years. Estimates point that India’s energy needs are set to grow by 40 percent, moving it from sixth slot to fourth position in the world’s top consuming nations by 2012.
“Cleaner burning and more efficient than coal,” coupled with the fact that tonnes of stranded gas around the world are just looking for a market, natural gas seems to be the answer to the ever-increasing demand for power in the present Indian environs, where the ways and means to provide sustainable and reliable solutions are far from clear.
Government figures show that the country’s domestic gas supply is 65 million standard cubic metres per day, while demand stands at 231 mmscmd and the projections put it to rise to 313 mmscmd by 2011-2012. India’s Planning Commission in its approach paper to its 11th Five-Year Plan that an ongoing sequence since it was launched five decades ago identified that among other factors, “... above all, power supply are not comparable to those prevalent in our competitor countries.”
Warning that, “... this gap must be filled within the next five to 10 years if our enterprises are to compete effectively,” the paper stressed that, today, Indian companies are not asking for state protection but at least, “expect a level playing field.” It may be noted that although industrial units are savvy about their own power plants, the acute lack of feeding fuel remains a major stumbling block. With focus shifting to cleaner industrialisation, there is a gas era ready to come of age, but latest government figures show the country failed to import only a third of the gas it wanted in 2006-2007.
One of the major reasons is the inadequate infrastructure in the country to handle gas imports as only two of the planned four terminals for LNG (Liquefied Natural Gas) re-gasification viz. Shell’s Hazira terminal and Petronet’s Dahej terminal, are operating while the Kochi terminal and the Dabhol are yet to get commissioned. These special terminals are needed as gas is shipped in liquid form and needs to be re-gasified when the ship berths. Lack of such specialised terminals left not only the power sector but also the fertilizer sector literally gasping for gas.
The geo-political situation around the world has cast its long dark shadows on the Indian government’s options to get international pipeline projects like the Iran-Pakistan-India, the Myanmar-India and the Turkmenistan-Afghanistan-Pakistan-India to deliver.
According to tough-talking sector observers, the first one has an American negative influence on it, the second seems to be lost to Chinese efforts, while the third is losing to its preferred sister project moving toward Russia on its journey to the more lucrative market of Europe, giving leverage to Moscow over Brussels in energy matters.
Dashing any hopes of salvaging the Myanmar-India gas pipeline project, the Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Limited, ONGC – Videsh Limited or OVL scrapped the project in the footsteps of the Gas Authority of India Limited, GAIL. R S Butola, Managing Director of OVL said in New Delhi on May 14: “Since Bangladesh has disagreed to our proposal, the project is now becoming a costly affair while China is trying hard to procure gas from Myanmar through a pipeline because the country has been suffering from a huge energy crisis for long.”
He ruled out any further bid to get back the pipeline project without a cost-benefit analysis. Such a delayed scenario for pipelines leaves the door wide open for imports of gas through ports. The Indian west coast is already dotted with ports which have emerged as leading container handlers with overstretched capacity and the time is ripe for the eastern ports of Kolkota, Haldia and Paradeep to take the initiative to grab this golden opportunity to become a hub of gas imports to meet the energy needs of the parent state, and for the onward transport to other parts of the country.
Usually, it will cost around USD 500 million to equip each port with a re-gasification terminal and a number of years of construction before gas starts flowing to consumers, but pundits offer a new pioneering working model showing a simple way out. With tailor-made delivery-driven solutions catering to exponentially increasing demands for gas, there are technologically advanced vessels which have the facility to re-gasify LNG onboard and discharge natural gas into the pipeline system through an “Energy Bridge” process. The time frame for opening the tap to consumers for this unique way of the re-gasification equipped vessels docking at the ports needs just a year from the time the final decision is taken to when work starts to install various discharge points like a buoy (deepwater port), a turret (shallow water port) or quayside.
Moreover, this also takes care of concerns of vocal environmentalists who have been campaigning against new terminals aimed to boosting imports of LNG. One market expert on India predicted that the move can lead to frenzied investment from abroad in Bengal for constructing short delivery pipelines to industrial units across the region. Calling it “the financial backbone of the future for Bengal (an eastern Indian state),” which is a state striving to transform its poor agro-economy into an industry powered financial giant in the coming years, the expert said in Brussels, “The state can contribute with tax rebates during high risk initial phases with applicant shipping companies committing to help in getting gas contracts at affordable prices.” Time will show if the industry and the state can take advantage of this opportunity to agree on terms of development of gas inlets and beyond.
Written for New Europe, the European Weekly on May 19, 2007 - Issue : 730
“Enough is Enough,” warns Morgantini
On the occasion of “40 years of occupation and no end in sight” for the Palestinian people, Luisa Morgantini, the Vice President of European Parliament last week spoke at length to Tejinder Singh (Tito), strongly denouncing the Israeli’s indiscriminate attacks against civilians as representing a serious breach of the principles of the Geneva Convention amounting to a war crime and called for an international UN force to protect civilians.
The Italian firebrand MEP said: “It’s very important to have one (UN force) but not forever. We need international UN peacekeeping troops to be sent to Gaza and West Bank. The international community has a duty to protect civilians, to stop the Israeli occupation of Palestinian territories, put an end to house demolitions and the destruction of infrastructure.”
Calling the situation as “a tragedy for both Palestinians and Israelis if there is not a rapid solution,” Morgantini said, “This month is 40 years of occupation and the Israeli occupation of West Bank and Gaza is extremely cruel and has really taken away freedom of Palestinian people with the Wall which in the beginning was build for security reasons, blocking the people; it’s a Wall that penetrates deep inside the Palestinian territories and takes away land from what should be a Palestinian state, the fertile land of the villages.”
Portraying a factual image of Israel as a “divided society,” she said: “On the other hand, Israeli society is facing a lot of problems including corruption, imagine President of the country being accused of rape, one of the ministers also accused of rape and many accusations of corruption.”
Stressing the importance of mutual trust and recognition to find a lasting solution to the ongoing sanguinary crisis, Morgantini called the international community “to recognise the democratically elected government of Palestine and to support the efforts made by all Palestinian political forces and President Mahoumud Abbas in their efforts to stop Palestinian militia groups firing rockets on Israeli towns and people.”
Accepting the fact that there are elements in Palestinian society that need taming she said, “Launching rockets is an criminal act on civilian population but the Israelis are responding to these acts through collective punishment, killing children, families, destroying homes and above all putting Palestinians in the jails.”
The Palestinian elections were held in a free and fair democratic manner and the outcome must be respected by law-abiding democratic governments argued Morgantini saying, “After 40 years the occupation continues, we have been talking about a two-state two-people solution since 1980 and we still have not even recognised a democratically-elected Palestinian government,” she said, calling for the EU to “show that it truly believes in international law.”
About the upcoming Quartet meeting, MEP said, “The real player in Middle East is United States. If it’s true what Condoleezza Rice is saying now that Palestinian state should exist along with Israel, then I am sure that Israeli government will accept and start to discuss seriously on negotiations.” “Normally Israelis say that there is no partner on Palestinian side for peace talks but as a matter of fact, President Abbas has been elected by the Palestinians on a clear platform: no violence, Palestinian state and peace with Israel. So Abbas is quite ready to have negotiations and Palestinian government is ready too now. The only way is to convince the Israeli government that it’s in their interests that they have to make peace.” “Palestinians have a Unity government based on a programme that clearly states that the government recognise agreements signed by PLO with recognition of occupied territories and a cease fire,” she said.
Asked to comment on Israel’s withholding of Palestinian customs duties, Morgantini urged the EU and the Quartet to force Israel to return the funds confiscated from Palestine. MEP lambasted Israel saying, “It is unacceptable that Israel is still withholding Palestinian tax and customs revenues and aggravating the Palestinian humanitarian crisis.” “The funds must be immediately transferred,” she demanded.
She commented, “In the European parliament while discussing Darfur, members are demanding sanctions against Sudanese government. What about sanctions against Israeli government which is violating human rights everyday and there are 11,000 Palestinian prisoners among them 370 children and 200 women?” Saying, “Gaza is a total prison,” Morgantini cited the instance of the border opening with Egypt “for only 74 days out of 365 days last year.”
Morgantini demanded the need for using Article two of the EU-Israel Association Agreement, according to which, in the case of violations of human rights the agreement should be suspended and she pointed that there was “no doubt about the human rights violations committed by the Israeli government.”“Enough is enough,” MEP Morgantini concluded urging the Europeans to step out of “guilt consciousness of the Holocaust,” and step forward for values of “justice and freedom for everyone” and to be “very honest with the Israeli government.”
Written for New Europe, the European Weekly on June 9, 2007 - Issue : 733
The Italian firebrand MEP said: “It’s very important to have one (UN force) but not forever. We need international UN peacekeeping troops to be sent to Gaza and West Bank. The international community has a duty to protect civilians, to stop the Israeli occupation of Palestinian territories, put an end to house demolitions and the destruction of infrastructure.”
Calling the situation as “a tragedy for both Palestinians and Israelis if there is not a rapid solution,” Morgantini said, “This month is 40 years of occupation and the Israeli occupation of West Bank and Gaza is extremely cruel and has really taken away freedom of Palestinian people with the Wall which in the beginning was build for security reasons, blocking the people; it’s a Wall that penetrates deep inside the Palestinian territories and takes away land from what should be a Palestinian state, the fertile land of the villages.”
Portraying a factual image of Israel as a “divided society,” she said: “On the other hand, Israeli society is facing a lot of problems including corruption, imagine President of the country being accused of rape, one of the ministers also accused of rape and many accusations of corruption.”
Stressing the importance of mutual trust and recognition to find a lasting solution to the ongoing sanguinary crisis, Morgantini called the international community “to recognise the democratically elected government of Palestine and to support the efforts made by all Palestinian political forces and President Mahoumud Abbas in their efforts to stop Palestinian militia groups firing rockets on Israeli towns and people.”
Accepting the fact that there are elements in Palestinian society that need taming she said, “Launching rockets is an criminal act on civilian population but the Israelis are responding to these acts through collective punishment, killing children, families, destroying homes and above all putting Palestinians in the jails.”
The Palestinian elections were held in a free and fair democratic manner and the outcome must be respected by law-abiding democratic governments argued Morgantini saying, “After 40 years the occupation continues, we have been talking about a two-state two-people solution since 1980 and we still have not even recognised a democratically-elected Palestinian government,” she said, calling for the EU to “show that it truly believes in international law.”
About the upcoming Quartet meeting, MEP said, “The real player in Middle East is United States. If it’s true what Condoleezza Rice is saying now that Palestinian state should exist along with Israel, then I am sure that Israeli government will accept and start to discuss seriously on negotiations.” “Normally Israelis say that there is no partner on Palestinian side for peace talks but as a matter of fact, President Abbas has been elected by the Palestinians on a clear platform: no violence, Palestinian state and peace with Israel. So Abbas is quite ready to have negotiations and Palestinian government is ready too now. The only way is to convince the Israeli government that it’s in their interests that they have to make peace.” “Palestinians have a Unity government based on a programme that clearly states that the government recognise agreements signed by PLO with recognition of occupied territories and a cease fire,” she said.
Asked to comment on Israel’s withholding of Palestinian customs duties, Morgantini urged the EU and the Quartet to force Israel to return the funds confiscated from Palestine. MEP lambasted Israel saying, “It is unacceptable that Israel is still withholding Palestinian tax and customs revenues and aggravating the Palestinian humanitarian crisis.” “The funds must be immediately transferred,” she demanded.
She commented, “In the European parliament while discussing Darfur, members are demanding sanctions against Sudanese government. What about sanctions against Israeli government which is violating human rights everyday and there are 11,000 Palestinian prisoners among them 370 children and 200 women?” Saying, “Gaza is a total prison,” Morgantini cited the instance of the border opening with Egypt “for only 74 days out of 365 days last year.”
Morgantini demanded the need for using Article two of the EU-Israel Association Agreement, according to which, in the case of violations of human rights the agreement should be suspended and she pointed that there was “no doubt about the human rights violations committed by the Israeli government.”“Enough is enough,” MEP Morgantini concluded urging the Europeans to step out of “guilt consciousness of the Holocaust,” and step forward for values of “justice and freedom for everyone” and to be “very honest with the Israeli government.”
Written for New Europe, the European Weekly on June 9, 2007 - Issue : 733
Banana sector gets slippery
Judgment day arriving as industry awaits Kroes’ moves
Investigations take time and when it comes to investigating in environs full of banana peels, the going gets slippery, slowing down proceedings further. There was, however no slip last week on the part of Jonathan Todd, commission spokesman for competition commissioner Neelie Kroes as he told journalists, “Anti-trust inquiry is ongoing.”
Todd was replying to a question about the latest status of a “cartel probe” launched two years ago into a suspected cartel of banana wholesalers. In 2005, Kroes team had raided the offices of Europe’s largest fruit distributors after Chiquita, the world’s biggest producer of bananas blew the whistle on an alleged cartel in the European banana markets.
At the time, Fyffes of Ireland, Dole and Del Monte of the US had admitted that they had been among the targets of the raids while the European commission had confirmed the “unannounced inspections” at the premises of several producers and distributors of bananas and pineapples in Germany, Belgium, the United Kingdom and Ireland.
“The Commission has reason to believe that the companies concerned may have violated Article 81 of the EC Treaty, which prohibits price fixing and market sharing practices,” the commission statement had said clarifying that raids did not mean that the targeted companies are guilty adding that a full-scale inquiry would be carried out.
The investigation was launched at the instance of Chiquita, based in Cincinnati in the US when it had it had informed the EU competition authorities after the management became aware that several of its employees had been sharing price information with rival companies for “many years.”
Commenting on the inquiry, reliable sources in the European commission and European banana industry sector told New Europe that the regulators are targeting the five biggest banana companies – Chiquita, Del Monte and Dole of the United States, plus Noboa of Ecuador and Fyffes of Ireland for an illegal cartel activity.
The sources also confirmed recent media reports that at the end of two years the European commission has more concrete information and formal charges may be initiated before the end of the current year.
Although Commissioner Kroes has broken many records during her tenure for imposing fines on cartels, the market observers feel that the fines, if imposed may stay within the precedent cases of about 10 percent of annual sales. Moreover, it may take months before the case comes to an end as the accused firms would have several months time period to defend themselves.
One market pundit alleged that the timing is coinciding with the ongoing transatlantic banana war which got reignited last year when Ecuador was joined by the US, Columbia and Panama to open another tug-of-war a decade later.
December 15, 2006 saw the first day of the proceedings at Geneva of revival of the “1990s banana wars” with the then-winner Ecuador coming back to haunt the European Union. Ecuador, the world’s largest banana exporter, complained to the WTO against the EU’s single tariff of 176 Euro that came into force on January 1, 2006, terming it “high.”
Last year, while negotiating for a single tariff system to modify its complex web of duties and quotas for imports, the European Commission had suggested EU duties of 230 Euro and then scaling them down to 187 Euro, but WTO panels had rejected the proposals arguing that those were discriminatory against Latin American (Latam) nations. Out of that deadlock emerged the figure of 176 Euro, but the conflict simmered on.
Even after the introduction of the new EU single tariff system, there was widespread dissatisfaction, and Norwegian Foreign Minister Jonas Gahr Stoere got into the driver’s seat to find a political solution based on a thorough monitoring of the EU banana imports and various price systems in force.
But, after waiting nearly for a year, Ecuador decided to go ahead with the WTO route and on November 23, 2006 was joined by Colombia as a third party. Panama and the US followed and more countries are set to join in the fray according to sector insiders.
The EU’s current banana import policy significantly differentiates access treatment as a tariff-quota volume of 775,000 tonnes is exclusively reserved for bananas of ACP origin. ACP bananas within the quota enter duty-free (i.e., at a 176 Euro/tonne margin of preference), with unlimited ACP over-quota access authorised at a tariff of 176 Euro/tonne. On the other hand, an “autonomous” tariff of 176 Euro/tonne (a rate more than double the previously-applicable rate of 75 Euro/tonne) applies to all other bananas.
Bananas are the most important agricultural product in Ecuador, and its exports account for 25 percent of all Ecuador’s agricultural exports. Some 97 percent of all banana output is aimed for the European market. On the other hand, in Europe it is a “sensitive” commodity and there is a protection regime for the sector.
While bananas grown within the bloc account for only 16 percent of the total EU supply, production is important to the Spain’s Canary Islands, the French overseas departments of Martinique and Guadeloupe and Portugal’s Madeira and Azores islands.
Europeans eat some 4.6 million tonnes of bananas every year, making the bloc the world’s biggest banana market. Over two-thirds of the fruits consumed come from Latin America and a further 17 percent from Africa and Caribbean countries.
Written for New Europe, the European Weekly on June 16, 2007 - Issue : 734
Investigations take time and when it comes to investigating in environs full of banana peels, the going gets slippery, slowing down proceedings further. There was, however no slip last week on the part of Jonathan Todd, commission spokesman for competition commissioner Neelie Kroes as he told journalists, “Anti-trust inquiry is ongoing.”
Todd was replying to a question about the latest status of a “cartel probe” launched two years ago into a suspected cartel of banana wholesalers. In 2005, Kroes team had raided the offices of Europe’s largest fruit distributors after Chiquita, the world’s biggest producer of bananas blew the whistle on an alleged cartel in the European banana markets.
At the time, Fyffes of Ireland, Dole and Del Monte of the US had admitted that they had been among the targets of the raids while the European commission had confirmed the “unannounced inspections” at the premises of several producers and distributors of bananas and pineapples in Germany, Belgium, the United Kingdom and Ireland.
“The Commission has reason to believe that the companies concerned may have violated Article 81 of the EC Treaty, which prohibits price fixing and market sharing practices,” the commission statement had said clarifying that raids did not mean that the targeted companies are guilty adding that a full-scale inquiry would be carried out.
The investigation was launched at the instance of Chiquita, based in Cincinnati in the US when it had it had informed the EU competition authorities after the management became aware that several of its employees had been sharing price information with rival companies for “many years.”
Commenting on the inquiry, reliable sources in the European commission and European banana industry sector told New Europe that the regulators are targeting the five biggest banana companies – Chiquita, Del Monte and Dole of the United States, plus Noboa of Ecuador and Fyffes of Ireland for an illegal cartel activity.
The sources also confirmed recent media reports that at the end of two years the European commission has more concrete information and formal charges may be initiated before the end of the current year.
Although Commissioner Kroes has broken many records during her tenure for imposing fines on cartels, the market observers feel that the fines, if imposed may stay within the precedent cases of about 10 percent of annual sales. Moreover, it may take months before the case comes to an end as the accused firms would have several months time period to defend themselves.
One market pundit alleged that the timing is coinciding with the ongoing transatlantic banana war which got reignited last year when Ecuador was joined by the US, Columbia and Panama to open another tug-of-war a decade later.
December 15, 2006 saw the first day of the proceedings at Geneva of revival of the “1990s banana wars” with the then-winner Ecuador coming back to haunt the European Union. Ecuador, the world’s largest banana exporter, complained to the WTO against the EU’s single tariff of 176 Euro that came into force on January 1, 2006, terming it “high.”
Last year, while negotiating for a single tariff system to modify its complex web of duties and quotas for imports, the European Commission had suggested EU duties of 230 Euro and then scaling them down to 187 Euro, but WTO panels had rejected the proposals arguing that those were discriminatory against Latin American (Latam) nations. Out of that deadlock emerged the figure of 176 Euro, but the conflict simmered on.
Even after the introduction of the new EU single tariff system, there was widespread dissatisfaction, and Norwegian Foreign Minister Jonas Gahr Stoere got into the driver’s seat to find a political solution based on a thorough monitoring of the EU banana imports and various price systems in force.
But, after waiting nearly for a year, Ecuador decided to go ahead with the WTO route and on November 23, 2006 was joined by Colombia as a third party. Panama and the US followed and more countries are set to join in the fray according to sector insiders.
The EU’s current banana import policy significantly differentiates access treatment as a tariff-quota volume of 775,000 tonnes is exclusively reserved for bananas of ACP origin. ACP bananas within the quota enter duty-free (i.e., at a 176 Euro/tonne margin of preference), with unlimited ACP over-quota access authorised at a tariff of 176 Euro/tonne. On the other hand, an “autonomous” tariff of 176 Euro/tonne (a rate more than double the previously-applicable rate of 75 Euro/tonne) applies to all other bananas.
Bananas are the most important agricultural product in Ecuador, and its exports account for 25 percent of all Ecuador’s agricultural exports. Some 97 percent of all banana output is aimed for the European market. On the other hand, in Europe it is a “sensitive” commodity and there is a protection regime for the sector.
While bananas grown within the bloc account for only 16 percent of the total EU supply, production is important to the Spain’s Canary Islands, the French overseas departments of Martinique and Guadeloupe and Portugal’s Madeira and Azores islands.
Europeans eat some 4.6 million tonnes of bananas every year, making the bloc the world’s biggest banana market. Over two-thirds of the fruits consumed come from Latin America and a further 17 percent from Africa and Caribbean countries.
Written for New Europe, the European Weekly on June 16, 2007 - Issue : 734
Interview with Jean Lemierre, President, EBRD
On the sidelines of attending “The European Bank for Reconstruction and Development: Focus on Eastern and South Eastern Europe,” an event organised last week at the Parliamentary Assembly of Council of Europe, Jean Lemierre, President of the EBRD spoke to Tejinder Singh (Tito) about the EBRD’s expanding role with a new policy to go further east and south in a changing world since its inception in 1991 when communism was crumbling in central and eastern Europe and ex-soviet countries needed support to nurture a new private sector in a democratic environment.
Q: With a “no-dividend” policy for 2006 although mentioning record profits, how strong is the EBRD position to expand its business?
A: The decision to put all of the profits for 2006 into reserves was fully consistent with the new strategy for the bank unveiled in May 2006 which foresees a shift in the bank’s activities further east and south and the assumption of greater risks. The bank needs these reserves in order to prepare for possible greater risks as we increasingly step up the pace of our investments, especially in the former Soviet Union and in the Balkans. Business volume in 2006 was 4.9 billion Euro and we expect roughly the same magnitude of investment in 2007.
Q: What is your opinion on how best to use the profits?
A: The final decision on the use of the profits will ultimately be taken by our shareholders but the debate on how to allocate income started at our Annual Meeting in Kazan this year. This issue needs a thorough debate and the discussions will continue until our next Annual Meeting in Kiev in 2008. There are three options under consideration. In addition to adding further to reserves there will be the option of using funds to support the bank’s activities, in areas such as providing technical assistance, training, supporting nuclear decommissioning projects and also supporting the bank’s activities in promoting energy efficiency. And then there is the option of returning some of the profits to the shareholders. The shareholders will take this decision.
Q: You are extending your role to Balkans and the Commonwealth of Independent States. How far you ready to go in Mediterranean other than EU members?
A: An expansion outside of the current countries of operation is not under discussion.
Q: How soft are the EBRD loans and what kinds of activities are being financed?
A: Not soft at all. The EBRD does not provide soft loans. If it did it would be competing with the private sector which is precisely what the Bank does not do. The bank invests either with loans or with equity stakes, usually in projects where the commercial sector is either not prepared to go at all or not prepared to invest alone. By investing in such projects the EBRD provides what we call “additionality.” The projects are aimed at promoting the process of economic transition, whether by working to improve corporate governance, possibly by taking a seat on a company board, or by helping to develop management or to support efforts to cut energy costs via energy efficiency measures. The bank is active across all sectors. Development of a vibrant financial sector is particularly important to the development of a market economy overall. But we are also active in working on infrastructure projects to help remove the bottlenecks that are obstacles to economic development. And we support private sector industry, either by direct loans or by loans to banks which then act as intermediaries and lend on to micro and small and medium enterprises.
Q: How much does politics play a role in loan dispensing? Does EBRD give any consideration to human rights records of the countries?
A: Politics and human rights do play a role. This is stipulated in Article 1 of the bank’s founding treaty which says the Bank will foster the transition towards open market-oriented economies and promote private and entrepreneurial initiative in countries “committed to and applying the principles of multiparty democracy, pluralism and market economics.” Where this is an issue we restrict our activities largely to investments purely in the private sector. And we also use policy dialogue to help produce positive developments.
Q: What is your vision for EBRD in coming years?
A: The vision is to carry out our role in supporting the further transformation of the economies in the areas where we are active; To see more countries in Europe preparing the way to accession to the European Union and benefiting from that membership; To see other countries increasingly becoming an integral part of the global economy, by joining the World Trade Organisation and playing as an equal partner in the global economic arena; To see in oil and gas rich countries a greater diversification of the economy to build for a sustainable future.
The process of transition has been hard. The collapse of the previous system was a huge shock. The pain endured by many people was great. The vision is also to see all people in the region ultimately benefiting from this huge challenge.
Interview with: Jean Lemierre taken at the end of June 2007 for New Europe, the European Weekly - Issue : 736
Q: With a “no-dividend” policy for 2006 although mentioning record profits, how strong is the EBRD position to expand its business?
A: The decision to put all of the profits for 2006 into reserves was fully consistent with the new strategy for the bank unveiled in May 2006 which foresees a shift in the bank’s activities further east and south and the assumption of greater risks. The bank needs these reserves in order to prepare for possible greater risks as we increasingly step up the pace of our investments, especially in the former Soviet Union and in the Balkans. Business volume in 2006 was 4.9 billion Euro and we expect roughly the same magnitude of investment in 2007.
Q: What is your opinion on how best to use the profits?
A: The final decision on the use of the profits will ultimately be taken by our shareholders but the debate on how to allocate income started at our Annual Meeting in Kazan this year. This issue needs a thorough debate and the discussions will continue until our next Annual Meeting in Kiev in 2008. There are three options under consideration. In addition to adding further to reserves there will be the option of using funds to support the bank’s activities, in areas such as providing technical assistance, training, supporting nuclear decommissioning projects and also supporting the bank’s activities in promoting energy efficiency. And then there is the option of returning some of the profits to the shareholders. The shareholders will take this decision.
Q: You are extending your role to Balkans and the Commonwealth of Independent States. How far you ready to go in Mediterranean other than EU members?
A: An expansion outside of the current countries of operation is not under discussion.
Q: How soft are the EBRD loans and what kinds of activities are being financed?
A: Not soft at all. The EBRD does not provide soft loans. If it did it would be competing with the private sector which is precisely what the Bank does not do. The bank invests either with loans or with equity stakes, usually in projects where the commercial sector is either not prepared to go at all or not prepared to invest alone. By investing in such projects the EBRD provides what we call “additionality.” The projects are aimed at promoting the process of economic transition, whether by working to improve corporate governance, possibly by taking a seat on a company board, or by helping to develop management or to support efforts to cut energy costs via energy efficiency measures. The bank is active across all sectors. Development of a vibrant financial sector is particularly important to the development of a market economy overall. But we are also active in working on infrastructure projects to help remove the bottlenecks that are obstacles to economic development. And we support private sector industry, either by direct loans or by loans to banks which then act as intermediaries and lend on to micro and small and medium enterprises.
Q: How much does politics play a role in loan dispensing? Does EBRD give any consideration to human rights records of the countries?
A: Politics and human rights do play a role. This is stipulated in Article 1 of the bank’s founding treaty which says the Bank will foster the transition towards open market-oriented economies and promote private and entrepreneurial initiative in countries “committed to and applying the principles of multiparty democracy, pluralism and market economics.” Where this is an issue we restrict our activities largely to investments purely in the private sector. And we also use policy dialogue to help produce positive developments.
Q: What is your vision for EBRD in coming years?
A: The vision is to carry out our role in supporting the further transformation of the economies in the areas where we are active; To see more countries in Europe preparing the way to accession to the European Union and benefiting from that membership; To see other countries increasingly becoming an integral part of the global economy, by joining the World Trade Organisation and playing as an equal partner in the global economic arena; To see in oil and gas rich countries a greater diversification of the economy to build for a sustainable future.
The process of transition has been hard. The collapse of the previous system was a huge shock. The pain endured by many people was great. The vision is also to see all people in the region ultimately benefiting from this huge challenge.
Interview with: Jean Lemierre taken at the end of June 2007 for New Europe, the European Weekly - Issue : 736
EU expresses `surprise` as US joins `Banana War`
Have patience, do not react and this too shall pass! The mantra advocated by many in the labyrinths of power in Brussels seems to have slipped badly as eleven years down the road the "Banana Wars" of late 90s are back knocking on the doors of the European Commission. The US, latest to join the fray at World Trade Organisation said in a statement, "The US request relates to the EU's apparent failure to implement the WTO rulings in a 1996 proceeding initiated by Ecuador, Guatemala, Honduras, Mexico and America."
Launching the formal step saying, "We are hopeful that this formal step will facilitate the removal of that discrimination," the US Trade Representative Susan C Schwab added, "We regret that efforts between the EU and its Latin American trading partners to negotiate a solution to the banana issue have not been successful. We share the concern of Ecuador and several other Latin American banana exporters regarding the continued existence of a discriminatory tariff rate quota in the EU's current banana regime."
The US statement pointed out that WTO ruling had said "the EU's regime discriminates against bananas originating in Latin American countries and against distributors of such bananas, including several US companies," adding "The EU was under an obligation to bring its banana regime into compliance with its WTO obligations by January 1999."
After the 1996 WTO ruling, the EU had committed to bring its tariff-quota regime for banana in compliance with the ruling no later than January 1, 2006, said the US statement, lamenting the fact that "the EU banana regime put in place on January 1, 2006 features a zero-duty tariff quota that is allocated exclusively to bananas from African, Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) countries. Bananas of Latin American origin do not have access to this duty-free tariff rate quota and are subject, instead, to a 176 Euro/ton duty."
The European Commissioner for Agriculture and Rural Development Mariann Fischer Boel introduced a personal element of surprise to a more than decade old dispute last week.
Answering a question from New Europe about the new WTO banana dispute with US joining others, the Commissioner wondered why at the first place the US is interested in banana sector as it is not a banana producer but then she answered her own doubts with the mention of Chiquita as the possible cause for US to intervene. The Commissioner however added that the EU will look into the matter and take appropriate steps.
Chiquita, based in Cincinnati in the US could not be contacted for their immediate reaction but European banana sector sources told New Europe that other US exporters including Del Monte and Dole are also affected adding that the European Commissioner has her facts correct that no bananas are grown in the US but in the trade circle of today's era of globalisation everyone is aware of the large farming interests of these leading world exporters globally especially in the Latin American region.
Coming back to the US request to WTO panel to review whether the EU banana import regime breaches the obligations of the international trade body, the EU this week in Geneva as a defending party may veto under WTO rules the request but the WTO will comply with the US request a month later unless the complaint is withdrawn.
The US is following the footsteps of Colombia and Panama which this year decided to follow the beaten track of Ecuador.
December 15, 2006 saw the first day of the proceedings at Geneva of revival of the "1990s banana wars" with the then-winner Ecuador coming back to haunt the European Union. Ecuador, the world's largest banana exporter, complained to the WTO against the EU's single tariff of 176 Euro that came into force on January 1, 2006, terming it "high."
Commenting on the decisions, Michael Mann, European commission spokesman for agriculture had said, "This is very regrettable. We had a consultation process going which we felt was making good progress."Over the past years negotiating for a single tariff system to modify its complex web of duties and quotas for imports, the European Commission, the executive arm of the EU, had suggested EU duties of 230 Euro and then scaling them down to 187 Euro, but WTO panels had rejected the proposals arguing that those were discriminatory against Latin American (Latam) nations. Out of that deadlock emerged the figure of 176 Euro, but the conflict simmered on.
Eurostat data of the first quarter 2007 compared to the same period 2005 made it clear how Latam share compared to ACP banana growing countries is slipping down the banana ladder. The imports of the latter are climbing double as fast as their counterparts in Latin America.The EU's current banana import policy significantly differentiates access treatment as a tariff-quota volume of 775,000 tonnes is exclusively reserved for bananas of ACP origin. ACP bananas within the quota enter duty-free ( i.e., at a 176 Euro/tonne margin of preference), with unlimited ACP over-quota access authorised at a tariff of 176 Euro/tonne.
On the other hand, an "autonomous" tariff of 176 Euro/tonne (a rate more than double the previously-applicable rate of 75 Euro/tonne) applies to all other bananas.Prior to the General Affairs and External Relations Council (GAERC) May 15, 2007, Spain threatened to veto the EU-ACP commitments unless its domestic producers were better protected from an expected rise in banana imports. The fallout was immediately visible when the GAERC endorsed the commission proposal to fully open European to imports from the ACP, with phased-in access for rice and sugar but the banana sector was shelved.
Debating in early December last year in the European Parliament on the need for an assistance to EU farmers, Jean-Claude Fruteau, Member of European Parliament argued, "The assistance provided for banana producers in the EU is necessary in order to compensate for the dysfunctions within the world trade system, in particular the current gap between the social and environmental standards of European countries and those of Central and Latin American countries. To be effective, these internal regulatory measures need to be in line with external regulatory tools by increasing budget allocations as and when any decrease in the customs tariff occurs."
The MEP was pointing to the fact that money coming in through import tariffs goes in to fill the coffers of EU's Common Agriculture Policy (CAP) from where the money goes to EU farmers.Boel had said that the current system of handouts to banana farmers was hard to justify in world trade talks and that it needed to be brought in line with EU agricultural reforms in other sectors.
While bananas grown within the European bloc account for only 16 percent of the total EU supply, production is important to the Spain's Canary Islands, the French overseas departments of Martinique and Guadeloupe and Portugal's Madeira and Azores islands.Europeans eat some 4.6 million tonnes of bananas every year, making the bloc the world's biggest banana market.
Over two-thirds of the fruits consumed come from Latin America and a further 17 percent from Africa and Caribbean countries.To meet all these requests the only way out is to grant duty free quotas to all regions or countries but that seems difficult with the arrival of French President Nicolas Sarkozy for whom the big chunk of winning votes came from French farmers and traders. It may have been a coincidence that Sarkozy went for his post-victory yacht trip with Vincent Bolore whose companies are loading bananas for Europe in Ivory Coast, Ghana and Cameroun.
Written on July 9, 2007 for New Europe, the European Weekly - Issue : 737
Launching the formal step saying, "We are hopeful that this formal step will facilitate the removal of that discrimination," the US Trade Representative Susan C Schwab added, "We regret that efforts between the EU and its Latin American trading partners to negotiate a solution to the banana issue have not been successful. We share the concern of Ecuador and several other Latin American banana exporters regarding the continued existence of a discriminatory tariff rate quota in the EU's current banana regime."
The US statement pointed out that WTO ruling had said "the EU's regime discriminates against bananas originating in Latin American countries and against distributors of such bananas, including several US companies," adding "The EU was under an obligation to bring its banana regime into compliance with its WTO obligations by January 1999."
After the 1996 WTO ruling, the EU had committed to bring its tariff-quota regime for banana in compliance with the ruling no later than January 1, 2006, said the US statement, lamenting the fact that "the EU banana regime put in place on January 1, 2006 features a zero-duty tariff quota that is allocated exclusively to bananas from African, Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) countries. Bananas of Latin American origin do not have access to this duty-free tariff rate quota and are subject, instead, to a 176 Euro/ton duty."
The European Commissioner for Agriculture and Rural Development Mariann Fischer Boel introduced a personal element of surprise to a more than decade old dispute last week.
Answering a question from New Europe about the new WTO banana dispute with US joining others, the Commissioner wondered why at the first place the US is interested in banana sector as it is not a banana producer but then she answered her own doubts with the mention of Chiquita as the possible cause for US to intervene. The Commissioner however added that the EU will look into the matter and take appropriate steps.
Chiquita, based in Cincinnati in the US could not be contacted for their immediate reaction but European banana sector sources told New Europe that other US exporters including Del Monte and Dole are also affected adding that the European Commissioner has her facts correct that no bananas are grown in the US but in the trade circle of today's era of globalisation everyone is aware of the large farming interests of these leading world exporters globally especially in the Latin American region.
Coming back to the US request to WTO panel to review whether the EU banana import regime breaches the obligations of the international trade body, the EU this week in Geneva as a defending party may veto under WTO rules the request but the WTO will comply with the US request a month later unless the complaint is withdrawn.
The US is following the footsteps of Colombia and Panama which this year decided to follow the beaten track of Ecuador.
December 15, 2006 saw the first day of the proceedings at Geneva of revival of the "1990s banana wars" with the then-winner Ecuador coming back to haunt the European Union. Ecuador, the world's largest banana exporter, complained to the WTO against the EU's single tariff of 176 Euro that came into force on January 1, 2006, terming it "high."
Commenting on the decisions, Michael Mann, European commission spokesman for agriculture had said, "This is very regrettable. We had a consultation process going which we felt was making good progress."Over the past years negotiating for a single tariff system to modify its complex web of duties and quotas for imports, the European Commission, the executive arm of the EU, had suggested EU duties of 230 Euro and then scaling them down to 187 Euro, but WTO panels had rejected the proposals arguing that those were discriminatory against Latin American (Latam) nations. Out of that deadlock emerged the figure of 176 Euro, but the conflict simmered on.
Eurostat data of the first quarter 2007 compared to the same period 2005 made it clear how Latam share compared to ACP banana growing countries is slipping down the banana ladder. The imports of the latter are climbing double as fast as their counterparts in Latin America.The EU's current banana import policy significantly differentiates access treatment as a tariff-quota volume of 775,000 tonnes is exclusively reserved for bananas of ACP origin. ACP bananas within the quota enter duty-free ( i.e., at a 176 Euro/tonne margin of preference), with unlimited ACP over-quota access authorised at a tariff of 176 Euro/tonne.
On the other hand, an "autonomous" tariff of 176 Euro/tonne (a rate more than double the previously-applicable rate of 75 Euro/tonne) applies to all other bananas.Prior to the General Affairs and External Relations Council (GAERC) May 15, 2007, Spain threatened to veto the EU-ACP commitments unless its domestic producers were better protected from an expected rise in banana imports. The fallout was immediately visible when the GAERC endorsed the commission proposal to fully open European to imports from the ACP, with phased-in access for rice and sugar but the banana sector was shelved.
Debating in early December last year in the European Parliament on the need for an assistance to EU farmers, Jean-Claude Fruteau, Member of European Parliament argued, "The assistance provided for banana producers in the EU is necessary in order to compensate for the dysfunctions within the world trade system, in particular the current gap between the social and environmental standards of European countries and those of Central and Latin American countries. To be effective, these internal regulatory measures need to be in line with external regulatory tools by increasing budget allocations as and when any decrease in the customs tariff occurs."
The MEP was pointing to the fact that money coming in through import tariffs goes in to fill the coffers of EU's Common Agriculture Policy (CAP) from where the money goes to EU farmers.Boel had said that the current system of handouts to banana farmers was hard to justify in world trade talks and that it needed to be brought in line with EU agricultural reforms in other sectors.
While bananas grown within the European bloc account for only 16 percent of the total EU supply, production is important to the Spain's Canary Islands, the French overseas departments of Martinique and Guadeloupe and Portugal's Madeira and Azores islands.Europeans eat some 4.6 million tonnes of bananas every year, making the bloc the world's biggest banana market.
Over two-thirds of the fruits consumed come from Latin America and a further 17 percent from Africa and Caribbean countries.To meet all these requests the only way out is to grant duty free quotas to all regions or countries but that seems difficult with the arrival of French President Nicolas Sarkozy for whom the big chunk of winning votes came from French farmers and traders. It may have been a coincidence that Sarkozy went for his post-victory yacht trip with Vincent Bolore whose companies are loading bananas for Europe in Ivory Coast, Ghana and Cameroun.
Written on July 9, 2007 for New Europe, the European Weekly - Issue : 737
Human trafficking: slavery
CoE Convention ushers in new era in legal protection
Thousands of human beings are trafficked across international borders each year with more than 80 percent being women and 70 percent forced into various forms of sexual servitude, according to top officials of the Council of Europe (CoE). The deputy secretary general of the CoE, Maud de Boer- Buquicchio last week told a high level conference on the monitoring mechanism of the Council of Europe “Convention on Action against Trafficking in Human Beings,” that “The scale of trafficking in human beings in Europe has long been underestimated.
National responses and sporadic international co-operation with a limited geographic scope are not enough to make a real difference in stopping this modern form of slavery, which very often ... involves children trafficked for the purpose of sexual exploitation.”
Welcoming the recent ratification by Cyprus, Boer-Buquicchio said, “Two and a half years after the Convention was opened for signature on the occasion of the Third Summit of the Council of Europe Heads of State and Government, we have finally reached the threshold of 10 ratifications which are requited for the Convention to enter into force.” “... Europe will finally be able to use this important, ground-breaking and farreaching instrument to combat trafficking in human beings,” she added.
The Council of Europe’s Convention on Action against Trafficking in Human Beings will enter into force on February 1, 2008, following its tenth ratification earlier this month. Albania, Austria, Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus, Denmark, Georgia, Moldova, Romania and Slovakia have now ratified the convention, which has been signed by a further 27 countries.
The human rights organisations had put in their recommendations during the formative areas urging the Convention to include clear provisions to provide assistance and support to victims of trafficking, to prevent the prosecution of trafficked people for immigration offences, and to ensure that there are no safe havens for traffickers.
Jill Heine, Legal Adviser for Amnesty International, had said: “While European states have taken steps to criminalise trafficking and prosecute traffickers, it is widely recognised that they need to do more to protect the rights of trafficked persons. This is the time to seize the opportunity and establish the highest standards of protection for victims of trafficking.”
Mary Cunneen, Director of Anti-Slavery International, said: “In order to ensure that the protection of victims’ rights is at the heart of the new treaty, it must be strengthened so that it requires states to provide comprehensive protection and support, including support and assistance, and a minimum ‘reflection period’ of at least three months, to enable victims to begin to recover, and to receive help.”
Now, the Council of Europe is in the process of setting up the Group of Experts on Action Against Trafficking in Human Beings (GRETA), an independent human rights monitoring mechanism. This quasi-judicial body will monitor the implementation of the Council’s convention on human trafficking.
Addressing the subject of the composition and working methods of GRETA at the high-level conference involving Council of Europe member states, observer countries, other international organisations (OSCE, United Nations and the European Commission) and NGOs (Anti-Slavery International and Amnesty International) in Strasbourg, Deputy Secretary General said, “In our experience, proper monitoring is indispensable to the effectiveness credibility and impact of our legal instruments.”
Venla Roth, an expert from Helsinki University told New Europe, “Finland is the only country to have these laws in place. The law that came into force in August 2006 criminalises human trafficking leading to sexual exploitation, forced labour and removal of organs.”
Moreover, Finland since early 2007 has put into practice legal instruments to provide assistance to victims of trafficking by giving them residence permits and a reflection period, she said.Although Finland has a National Plan of Action since August 2005, the government has drafted a new National Plan of Action for further implementation to strengthen this fight against human trafficking, Roth added.
The main features of the new Convention include:
- Compulsory assistance measures and a recovery and reflection period of at least 30 days for the victims of trafficking
- The possibility to deliver residence permits to victims not only on the basis of cooperation with the law enforcement authorities, but also on humanitarian grounds
- The possibility to criminalise “the clients”
- A non-punishment clause for the victims of trafficking
- A strengthened international cooperation system and an independent monitoring mechanism, GRETA, which will monitor the proper implementation of the Convention by the Parties
The 27 member states which have signed but not yet ratified the convention are Andorra, Armenia, Belgium, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Luxembourg, Malta, Montenegro, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, San Marino, Serbia, Slovenia, Sweden, “the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia”, Ukraine and the United Kingdom.
Urging the member states to ratify, Deputy Secretary General Maud de Boer-Buquicchio said, “While we are all delighted that we have reached the ratification threshold of ten, it is also clear that the Convention will only have full impact when the scope of its geographic application is extended throughout Europe – and beyond.”
Talking of Europe she added, “The measures introduced by the Convention will be fully applied in EU member states only when the Convention is ratified also by the EU. I think an early ratification would be the best way to mark the recently-created EU Day against Human Trafficking.”
Trafficking in human beings is a worldwide phenomenon often linked to organised crime. It is a modern form of slavery, in which human beings are treated as a commodity for sexual exploitation or forced labour. According to the International Labour Organisation, up to 2.45 million people throughout the world are victims of human trafficking every year.The illicit profits of this trade amount to USD 33 billion annually, making it the third most profitable criminal activity after illegal drugs and arms trafficking.
Thousands of human beings are trafficked across international borders each year with more than 80 percent being women and 70 percent forced into various forms of sexual servitude, according to top officials of the Council of Europe (CoE). The deputy secretary general of the CoE, Maud de Boer- Buquicchio last week told a high level conference on the monitoring mechanism of the Council of Europe “Convention on Action against Trafficking in Human Beings,” that “The scale of trafficking in human beings in Europe has long been underestimated.
National responses and sporadic international co-operation with a limited geographic scope are not enough to make a real difference in stopping this modern form of slavery, which very often ... involves children trafficked for the purpose of sexual exploitation.”
Welcoming the recent ratification by Cyprus, Boer-Buquicchio said, “Two and a half years after the Convention was opened for signature on the occasion of the Third Summit of the Council of Europe Heads of State and Government, we have finally reached the threshold of 10 ratifications which are requited for the Convention to enter into force.” “... Europe will finally be able to use this important, ground-breaking and farreaching instrument to combat trafficking in human beings,” she added.
The Council of Europe’s Convention on Action against Trafficking in Human Beings will enter into force on February 1, 2008, following its tenth ratification earlier this month. Albania, Austria, Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus, Denmark, Georgia, Moldova, Romania and Slovakia have now ratified the convention, which has been signed by a further 27 countries.
The human rights organisations had put in their recommendations during the formative areas urging the Convention to include clear provisions to provide assistance and support to victims of trafficking, to prevent the prosecution of trafficked people for immigration offences, and to ensure that there are no safe havens for traffickers.
Jill Heine, Legal Adviser for Amnesty International, had said: “While European states have taken steps to criminalise trafficking and prosecute traffickers, it is widely recognised that they need to do more to protect the rights of trafficked persons. This is the time to seize the opportunity and establish the highest standards of protection for victims of trafficking.”
Mary Cunneen, Director of Anti-Slavery International, said: “In order to ensure that the protection of victims’ rights is at the heart of the new treaty, it must be strengthened so that it requires states to provide comprehensive protection and support, including support and assistance, and a minimum ‘reflection period’ of at least three months, to enable victims to begin to recover, and to receive help.”
Now, the Council of Europe is in the process of setting up the Group of Experts on Action Against Trafficking in Human Beings (GRETA), an independent human rights monitoring mechanism. This quasi-judicial body will monitor the implementation of the Council’s convention on human trafficking.
Addressing the subject of the composition and working methods of GRETA at the high-level conference involving Council of Europe member states, observer countries, other international organisations (OSCE, United Nations and the European Commission) and NGOs (Anti-Slavery International and Amnesty International) in Strasbourg, Deputy Secretary General said, “In our experience, proper monitoring is indispensable to the effectiveness credibility and impact of our legal instruments.”
Venla Roth, an expert from Helsinki University told New Europe, “Finland is the only country to have these laws in place. The law that came into force in August 2006 criminalises human trafficking leading to sexual exploitation, forced labour and removal of organs.”
Moreover, Finland since early 2007 has put into practice legal instruments to provide assistance to victims of trafficking by giving them residence permits and a reflection period, she said.Although Finland has a National Plan of Action since August 2005, the government has drafted a new National Plan of Action for further implementation to strengthen this fight against human trafficking, Roth added.
The main features of the new Convention include:
- Compulsory assistance measures and a recovery and reflection period of at least 30 days for the victims of trafficking
- The possibility to deliver residence permits to victims not only on the basis of cooperation with the law enforcement authorities, but also on humanitarian grounds
- The possibility to criminalise “the clients”
- A non-punishment clause for the victims of trafficking
- A strengthened international cooperation system and an independent monitoring mechanism, GRETA, which will monitor the proper implementation of the Convention by the Parties
The 27 member states which have signed but not yet ratified the convention are Andorra, Armenia, Belgium, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Luxembourg, Malta, Montenegro, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, San Marino, Serbia, Slovenia, Sweden, “the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia”, Ukraine and the United Kingdom.
Urging the member states to ratify, Deputy Secretary General Maud de Boer-Buquicchio said, “While we are all delighted that we have reached the ratification threshold of ten, it is also clear that the Convention will only have full impact when the scope of its geographic application is extended throughout Europe – and beyond.”
Talking of Europe she added, “The measures introduced by the Convention will be fully applied in EU member states only when the Convention is ratified also by the EU. I think an early ratification would be the best way to mark the recently-created EU Day against Human Trafficking.”
Trafficking in human beings is a worldwide phenomenon often linked to organised crime. It is a modern form of slavery, in which human beings are treated as a commodity for sexual exploitation or forced labour. According to the International Labour Organisation, up to 2.45 million people throughout the world are victims of human trafficking every year.The illicit profits of this trade amount to USD 33 billion annually, making it the third most profitable criminal activity after illegal drugs and arms trafficking.
Ryanair sues EU over French aid
Ryanair knocked on the gates of the European Court of First Instance with a legal case against the European Commission, accusing it of not preventing alleged illegal French state aid for Air France.
“Ryanair... today (Thursday, November 8, 2007), (exactly 18 months after its original complaint), lodged a case in the European Court of First Instance against the European Commission’s failure to act on Ryanair’s complaint about one billion Euro worth of State to Air France in the form of unlawful reduced domestic airport charges in France,” Ryanair said in a statement.
Confirming the legal action, Michele Cercone, spokesperson for the European Commissioner for transport, Jacques Barrot told New Europe, “The Commission is aware that Ryanair has launched an action under Article 232 for failure to act in connection will an allegation of state aid to Air France.” Ryanair added, “... (Ryanair) has called on the Commission several times to investigate this obvious abuse of EU competition rules, but the Commission has repeatedly failed to do so.”
Commenting on the subject, Cercone said, “The complaint is that by means of a differentiated system of airport charging in France where lower charges are imposed on operators flying routes inside France that the French authorities have favoured Air France.”
“While the Commission has not yet seen the content of the case lodged by Ryanair, it is confident that this action for failure to act will not be upheld. Ryanair’s complaint dates from May 8, 2006 (there was a supplementary submission on May 30, 2006).
“On receipt of the complaint the Commission services have taken action and have written to the French authorities to request information and clarifications on June 21, 2006, January 30, 2007, April 27, 2007 and June 28, 2007. Replies have been received on August 24, 2006, May 11, 2007 and August 29, 2007 and are being examined,” explained commission spokesman.
Announcing the launch of the latest proceedings Michael O’Leary, Ryanair’s CEO, said in a statement: “This is just another example of the Commission’s unevenhanded application of the State aid rules. They apply one rule to flag carriers by ignoring blatant State aid to Air France, Alitalia, Olympic, Lufthansa among others, while at the same time wasting time and money investigating baseless complaints from flag carrier airlines against open market commercial deals at regional and secondary airports.
“The French Government’s operation of massively discounted domestic airport fees in France – almost all of which supports Air France – amounts to approximately one billion Euro of illegal State aid to the benefit of Air France, yet the Commission has refused to do anything about this for the last 18 months! The Commission has previously outlawed differentiated domestic/intra EU airport charges in Finland, Portugal, the UK and Ireland, so why should France be any different?” asked Ryanair’s CEO.
Getting into the technicality of the subject, Cercone, the European Commission spokesman said, “In this connection it is the intention of the Commission services to examine this complaint both under the combined provisions of Article 49 of the Treaty and Article 3(1) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2408/92 and under the State aid rules. To this end the Commission has on October 23, 2007 issued a letter of formal notice under Article 226 to France concerning discriminatory charges levied at French airports. “The Commission is also examining any possible advantage given in the context of State aid investigation into airport charging systems in airports in France and inquiries in relation to one such airport are already at an advanced stage,” Cercone added.
The Ryanair CEO in his statement called for fair competition saying, “It appears that the Commission applies different rules for the high fare flag carrier airlines compared to low fares airlines. We are calling on the Commission to start promoting competition and stop protecting flag carrier airlines who continue to receive unlawful State aid.”
Dublin-based Ryanair is currently involved in a number of separate legal challenges. It is challenging a European Commission decision to block its bid for fellow Irish airline Aer Lingus, and is fighting planned flight cuts at Rome’s Ciampino airport. Ryanair is also challenging the French government’s demand that the airline applies French working practices for its staff working in France.
“Ryanair... today (Thursday, November 8, 2007), (exactly 18 months after its original complaint), lodged a case in the European Court of First Instance against the European Commission’s failure to act on Ryanair’s complaint about one billion Euro worth of State to Air France in the form of unlawful reduced domestic airport charges in France,” Ryanair said in a statement.
Confirming the legal action, Michele Cercone, spokesperson for the European Commissioner for transport, Jacques Barrot told New Europe, “The Commission is aware that Ryanair has launched an action under Article 232 for failure to act in connection will an allegation of state aid to Air France.” Ryanair added, “... (Ryanair) has called on the Commission several times to investigate this obvious abuse of EU competition rules, but the Commission has repeatedly failed to do so.”
Commenting on the subject, Cercone said, “The complaint is that by means of a differentiated system of airport charging in France where lower charges are imposed on operators flying routes inside France that the French authorities have favoured Air France.”
“While the Commission has not yet seen the content of the case lodged by Ryanair, it is confident that this action for failure to act will not be upheld. Ryanair’s complaint dates from May 8, 2006 (there was a supplementary submission on May 30, 2006).
“On receipt of the complaint the Commission services have taken action and have written to the French authorities to request information and clarifications on June 21, 2006, January 30, 2007, April 27, 2007 and June 28, 2007. Replies have been received on August 24, 2006, May 11, 2007 and August 29, 2007 and are being examined,” explained commission spokesman.
Announcing the launch of the latest proceedings Michael O’Leary, Ryanair’s CEO, said in a statement: “This is just another example of the Commission’s unevenhanded application of the State aid rules. They apply one rule to flag carriers by ignoring blatant State aid to Air France, Alitalia, Olympic, Lufthansa among others, while at the same time wasting time and money investigating baseless complaints from flag carrier airlines against open market commercial deals at regional and secondary airports.
“The French Government’s operation of massively discounted domestic airport fees in France – almost all of which supports Air France – amounts to approximately one billion Euro of illegal State aid to the benefit of Air France, yet the Commission has refused to do anything about this for the last 18 months! The Commission has previously outlawed differentiated domestic/intra EU airport charges in Finland, Portugal, the UK and Ireland, so why should France be any different?” asked Ryanair’s CEO.
Getting into the technicality of the subject, Cercone, the European Commission spokesman said, “In this connection it is the intention of the Commission services to examine this complaint both under the combined provisions of Article 49 of the Treaty and Article 3(1) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2408/92 and under the State aid rules. To this end the Commission has on October 23, 2007 issued a letter of formal notice under Article 226 to France concerning discriminatory charges levied at French airports. “The Commission is also examining any possible advantage given in the context of State aid investigation into airport charging systems in airports in France and inquiries in relation to one such airport are already at an advanced stage,” Cercone added.
The Ryanair CEO in his statement called for fair competition saying, “It appears that the Commission applies different rules for the high fare flag carrier airlines compared to low fares airlines. We are calling on the Commission to start promoting competition and stop protecting flag carrier airlines who continue to receive unlawful State aid.”
Dublin-based Ryanair is currently involved in a number of separate legal challenges. It is challenging a European Commission decision to block its bid for fellow Irish airline Aer Lingus, and is fighting planned flight cuts at Rome’s Ciampino airport. Ryanair is also challenging the French government’s demand that the airline applies French working practices for its staff working in France.
Monday, November 12, 2007
EU-India dialogue continues
Journalists lament news lost in bureaucratic labyrinth
The European Union, boasting 27 member states and with more lined up to join, has a lot of similarities with India, a federal democracy with 28 states and seven union territories. India was one of the first countries to initiate diplomatic relations with the European Economic Community (EEC) in 1962 and cemented it further with bilateral agreements in 1973 and 1981.
With the ongoing expansion of the EU, the largest financial giant in the world, and the booming economy of India, a nation of over a billion people, there has been no slowdown in the European Union’s role as India’s foremost trading partner and largest foreign internal investor.
The two nations declared on September 7, 2005 at their sixth summit in New Delhi, that they would enhance their ongoing co-operation with the creation of a pragmatic EU–India strategic partnership. According to the European commission declaration, “The action plan covers a wide range of issues grouped under five main chapters:
1. Strengthening dialogue and consultation mechanisms
2. Political dialogue and cooperation
3. Bringing people and cultures together
4. Economic policy dialogue and cooperation5. Developing trade and investment”
In view of these ambitious goals and commitments, it has come as a surprise to Brussels-based journalists that there appears to be a translucent wall shielding information from the media with regard to visits and discussions between these two strategic partners, with the exception of an odd commission press release after the visit is over.
In the latest episode of this ongoing saga, Brussels-based journalists later learned of an official visit to Brussels by an Indian delegation led by Indian Civil Aviation Minister Praful Patel. This information came from a post-visit commission press release, with more details emerging from media reports out of Delhi after the minister’s return to the Indian capital.
Speaking to New Europe, concerned journalists confirmed their lack of any prior knowledge of the visit. There are numerous dialogues, including a bilateral trade agreement and the World Trade Organization (WTO) Doha Round consultations that are being discussed between the European Union and India, and those in the media are voicing concerns of an apparent lack of transparency and availability of information to journalists.
Moreover, it has yet to be explained why the Indian permanent mission to the EU stays tight-lipped about such visits. A recent informal survey of journalists interested in EUIndia relations found that none of the respondents had received any recent emails or other forms of communication from the Indian diplomatic quarters in Brussels regarding the visits or any other ongoing bilateral discussions.
It has been the standard procedure of the European Commission whenever there is a visiting foreign minister from another country, that there is usually a VIP corner (where the commissioner concerned and the visiting dignitaries give a few minutes to the Brussels press corps), if not a full press briefing. Yet somehow, we have yet to see such an opportunity in the recent past when an Indian minister or delegation is visiting.
It seems that the visiting Indian aviation minister did have a fruitful discussion and that an agreement to allow European airlines flying to India to offer multi-modal transport facilities to passengers and vice-versa for Indian air-carriers, may be in the making.
Moreover, the European Commission has been looking forward to acquiring an umbrella agreement for open skies with India, instead of the present bilateral agreements which India has with various EU member states.
Such an agreement will benefit passengers and the citizens of Europe and India. By keeping the press out of the loop, there has been a virtual blackout of these discussions and it seems the press will come to know only when such agreements are finalised and announced in a press release, buried among a plethora of other subjects. Clearly this method provides no opportunity for cross-examination of the pros and cons of the agreement, nor does it allow for discussion to fine tune the negotiations. But the talk of transparency and openness to the European citizens from the European Commission will continue as usual.
There is concern as to the process by which the VIP corners or full press briefings are arranged in the European Commission for the visiting dignitaries. Moreover, there is a consensus among many members of the media that the permanent Indian delegation to the European Union also shoulders some of the responsibility about this lack of availability of information.
On its website, the European Commission announces, “The relationship between India and Europe pre-dates history. Most of Europe owes its linguistic heritage to India — and much of its cultural base … This symbolises the relationship between India and the EU, at one and the same time very old, yet dynamic and entirely modern. Besides the political, economic and trade dialogues which tend to dominate the vision of EU–India cooperation, there is a strong supporting cultural and social interrelationship encompassing many sectors and levels of both societies.”
In view of this statement, there should be a free and frank flow of information to the press corps in Brussels in order to carry the message to the European and Indian citizens, and to strengthen the bonds between the two nations which have existed for centuries, as confirmed by the European commission.
The first ever EU-India Summit was held in 2000 in Lisbon, Portugal and seven years later Portugal again has the EU Presidency, and the opportunity to rekindle these ties, hopefully with much more transparency so that European and Indian citizens can better understand each other’s culture and points of view.
The European Union, boasting 27 member states and with more lined up to join, has a lot of similarities with India, a federal democracy with 28 states and seven union territories. India was one of the first countries to initiate diplomatic relations with the European Economic Community (EEC) in 1962 and cemented it further with bilateral agreements in 1973 and 1981.
With the ongoing expansion of the EU, the largest financial giant in the world, and the booming economy of India, a nation of over a billion people, there has been no slowdown in the European Union’s role as India’s foremost trading partner and largest foreign internal investor.
The two nations declared on September 7, 2005 at their sixth summit in New Delhi, that they would enhance their ongoing co-operation with the creation of a pragmatic EU–India strategic partnership. According to the European commission declaration, “The action plan covers a wide range of issues grouped under five main chapters:
1. Strengthening dialogue and consultation mechanisms
2. Political dialogue and cooperation
3. Bringing people and cultures together
4. Economic policy dialogue and cooperation5. Developing trade and investment”
In view of these ambitious goals and commitments, it has come as a surprise to Brussels-based journalists that there appears to be a translucent wall shielding information from the media with regard to visits and discussions between these two strategic partners, with the exception of an odd commission press release after the visit is over.
In the latest episode of this ongoing saga, Brussels-based journalists later learned of an official visit to Brussels by an Indian delegation led by Indian Civil Aviation Minister Praful Patel. This information came from a post-visit commission press release, with more details emerging from media reports out of Delhi after the minister’s return to the Indian capital.
Speaking to New Europe, concerned journalists confirmed their lack of any prior knowledge of the visit. There are numerous dialogues, including a bilateral trade agreement and the World Trade Organization (WTO) Doha Round consultations that are being discussed between the European Union and India, and those in the media are voicing concerns of an apparent lack of transparency and availability of information to journalists.
Moreover, it has yet to be explained why the Indian permanent mission to the EU stays tight-lipped about such visits. A recent informal survey of journalists interested in EUIndia relations found that none of the respondents had received any recent emails or other forms of communication from the Indian diplomatic quarters in Brussels regarding the visits or any other ongoing bilateral discussions.
It has been the standard procedure of the European Commission whenever there is a visiting foreign minister from another country, that there is usually a VIP corner (where the commissioner concerned and the visiting dignitaries give a few minutes to the Brussels press corps), if not a full press briefing. Yet somehow, we have yet to see such an opportunity in the recent past when an Indian minister or delegation is visiting.
It seems that the visiting Indian aviation minister did have a fruitful discussion and that an agreement to allow European airlines flying to India to offer multi-modal transport facilities to passengers and vice-versa for Indian air-carriers, may be in the making.
Moreover, the European Commission has been looking forward to acquiring an umbrella agreement for open skies with India, instead of the present bilateral agreements which India has with various EU member states.
Such an agreement will benefit passengers and the citizens of Europe and India. By keeping the press out of the loop, there has been a virtual blackout of these discussions and it seems the press will come to know only when such agreements are finalised and announced in a press release, buried among a plethora of other subjects. Clearly this method provides no opportunity for cross-examination of the pros and cons of the agreement, nor does it allow for discussion to fine tune the negotiations. But the talk of transparency and openness to the European citizens from the European Commission will continue as usual.
There is concern as to the process by which the VIP corners or full press briefings are arranged in the European Commission for the visiting dignitaries. Moreover, there is a consensus among many members of the media that the permanent Indian delegation to the European Union also shoulders some of the responsibility about this lack of availability of information.
On its website, the European Commission announces, “The relationship between India and Europe pre-dates history. Most of Europe owes its linguistic heritage to India — and much of its cultural base … This symbolises the relationship between India and the EU, at one and the same time very old, yet dynamic and entirely modern. Besides the political, economic and trade dialogues which tend to dominate the vision of EU–India cooperation, there is a strong supporting cultural and social interrelationship encompassing many sectors and levels of both societies.”
In view of this statement, there should be a free and frank flow of information to the press corps in Brussels in order to carry the message to the European and Indian citizens, and to strengthen the bonds between the two nations which have existed for centuries, as confirmed by the European commission.
The first ever EU-India Summit was held in 2000 in Lisbon, Portugal and seven years later Portugal again has the EU Presidency, and the opportunity to rekindle these ties, hopefully with much more transparency so that European and Indian citizens can better understand each other’s culture and points of view.
Musharraf gets flak
MEPs, NGOs join hands to lambaste curtailing of human rights
There was an outcry against the imposition of a state of emergency in Pakistan by President Pervez Musharraf as members of the European Parliament were joined by human rights NGOs to voice their strong condemnation at a public hearing on Bangladesh and Pakistan by the EP Human Rights Subcommittee.Reiterating the warning already given in an earlier EP resolution on October 25 against “the imposition of emergency rule,” the chair of the subcommittee, MEP Helene Flautre, described the situation in both countries as “worrying.”
MEP Jo Leinen described the unfolding events in Pakistan as “unacceptable” and asked “how can free and fair elections take place in an emergency situation?” a point underscored by MEP Laima Andrikiene. Accusing Musharraf of “destabilising Pakistan” while proclaiming “the notion that he was the single person” to hold the Taliban at bay, Brad Adam of Human Rights Watch argued “the EU should assess all programmes with Pakistan from top to bottom,” so as to send a political signal.
Although the key demand of most of the speakers boiled down to a complete cut-off in aid, there was a catch as senior European Commission official Helen Campbell pointed out that most of the aid going through NGOs is directed at education, health and poverty eradication programmes. There is, however a small percentage of aid going to the government and Campbell agreed, “Of course it is not business as usual” in EU relations with Pakistan.
A statement read out on behalf of Mohammed Tahseen of the Pakistan Coalition for Free and Fair Elections, who was unable to attend the hearing, criticised Musharraf’s actions, notably “pre-election rigging” and attacks on the judiciary and media.
Also on the agenda of the meeting was Bangladesh (former East Pakistan) – another Asian country reeling under a state of emergency. Adams brought to the notice of the audience the negligible restraining influence over the military which was ruling by proxy.
Moreover, Rosaline Costa of Hotline Human Rights Bangladesh listed violations of minority rights and the extrajudicial “crossfire” killings by the Rapid Action Battalion, an elite anti-crime squad.Costa urged the EU to press for the lifting of the state of emergency and the holding of free and fair elections.
Earlier, EU foreign policy chief Javier Solana had added his voice to international concerns over the declaration of emergency rule in Pakistan.Even if the country was confronted by a difficult political situation, “deviation from the general democratic line cannot be the solution,” he said, calling for a return to regular law and order. Solana also called for the scheduled general election to go ahead next January, adding: “Abandoning the path to democracy is not the answer.”EU envoys in Pakistan also reiterated the call for holding of free and fair elections on schedule and said there must be a restoration of civilian rule, respect for the independence of the judiciary and freedom of the media.
The Brussels-based International Federation of Journalists (IFJ) expressed concern at the ongoing grave situation with annihilation of free expression and brutal crackdown along with censorship.Aidan White, IFJ General Secretary outlined a protest programme in the coming weeks along with a proposed delegation visit to Pakistan.
There was an outcry against the imposition of a state of emergency in Pakistan by President Pervez Musharraf as members of the European Parliament were joined by human rights NGOs to voice their strong condemnation at a public hearing on Bangladesh and Pakistan by the EP Human Rights Subcommittee.Reiterating the warning already given in an earlier EP resolution on October 25 against “the imposition of emergency rule,” the chair of the subcommittee, MEP Helene Flautre, described the situation in both countries as “worrying.”
MEP Jo Leinen described the unfolding events in Pakistan as “unacceptable” and asked “how can free and fair elections take place in an emergency situation?” a point underscored by MEP Laima Andrikiene. Accusing Musharraf of “destabilising Pakistan” while proclaiming “the notion that he was the single person” to hold the Taliban at bay, Brad Adam of Human Rights Watch argued “the EU should assess all programmes with Pakistan from top to bottom,” so as to send a political signal.
Although the key demand of most of the speakers boiled down to a complete cut-off in aid, there was a catch as senior European Commission official Helen Campbell pointed out that most of the aid going through NGOs is directed at education, health and poverty eradication programmes. There is, however a small percentage of aid going to the government and Campbell agreed, “Of course it is not business as usual” in EU relations with Pakistan.
A statement read out on behalf of Mohammed Tahseen of the Pakistan Coalition for Free and Fair Elections, who was unable to attend the hearing, criticised Musharraf’s actions, notably “pre-election rigging” and attacks on the judiciary and media.
Also on the agenda of the meeting was Bangladesh (former East Pakistan) – another Asian country reeling under a state of emergency. Adams brought to the notice of the audience the negligible restraining influence over the military which was ruling by proxy.
Moreover, Rosaline Costa of Hotline Human Rights Bangladesh listed violations of minority rights and the extrajudicial “crossfire” killings by the Rapid Action Battalion, an elite anti-crime squad.Costa urged the EU to press for the lifting of the state of emergency and the holding of free and fair elections.
Earlier, EU foreign policy chief Javier Solana had added his voice to international concerns over the declaration of emergency rule in Pakistan.Even if the country was confronted by a difficult political situation, “deviation from the general democratic line cannot be the solution,” he said, calling for a return to regular law and order. Solana also called for the scheduled general election to go ahead next January, adding: “Abandoning the path to democracy is not the answer.”EU envoys in Pakistan also reiterated the call for holding of free and fair elections on schedule and said there must be a restoration of civilian rule, respect for the independence of the judiciary and freedom of the media.
The Brussels-based International Federation of Journalists (IFJ) expressed concern at the ongoing grave situation with annihilation of free expression and brutal crackdown along with censorship.Aidan White, IFJ General Secretary outlined a protest programme in the coming weeks along with a proposed delegation visit to Pakistan.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
