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.
Tuesday, November 13, 2007
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.
Sunday, October 28, 2007
Parliament wants tighter grip on EU aid flow
The European Union, the toothless economic giant, pumps millions of Euro every year to Third World countries in the name of aid through different agencies, especially EuropeAid, but the question that keeps nagging concerned European citizens is how much of the European taxpayers’ money is put to good use. The translucent nature of operations is nowhere more visible than where they are needed the most: on the African continent.
The European Commission, the executive arm of the EU, has been managing hundreds of millions in humanitarian and development aid but it seems it is yet to learn the importance of linking aid to accountability, transparency, and respect for human rights based on the local culture and civilisations.
European citizens are firm believers in respect for human rights, and, to appease them, there is always a lot of talk on the subject, but without access to potable water, basic foods and bare essential drugs, is it possible for the hungry suffering masses to visualise a rosy picture of democracy, human rights and power to people portrayed by the Commission? The answer is an emphatic no.
In recent times, the West has been claiming China has made big inroads into the African continent, forgetting that one of the oldest projects that Beijing did was the Tan-Zam Railway from Tanzania to Zambia. There is no doubt that China today is acting in the form of a hungry monster gourmandising on available raw materials and energy resources, and is bulldozing its way through Africa, intentionally ignoring the human rights records of regimes which are pariah to western aid for their dictatorial governance methods.
But we forget that we are expecting human rights evaluation from a single Communist-party ruled state which ruthlessly nips in the bud even any smell of dissenting voices in its domestic arena. This is the simple reason why Robert Mugabe in Zimbabwe and Omar al-Beshir in Sudan are getting what they get from China. But the EU, the preacher of human values and upholders of democratic traditions, needs to get its act together and for that the European Parliament, the only democratically- and-directly elected European institution, has started doing the needful.
The Development Committee of the European parliament has had a legal right to scrutinise “the Country, Regional and Thematic strategy papers and Annual Action Plans” since this year. To be more accountable to European citizens - to whom the European Parliament is answerable - the Development Committee got the legal element, added to the political right of parliament, to control the EU executive, which is taken for granted as “God-given” in any functioning democracy.
According to committee sources, the EP has taken up the possibility to do this by organising into workgroups and systematically scrutinising the mentioned documents. This has already resulted in four resolutions in 2007 that have gone through plenary which indicate that the executive has overstepped its mandate.
Commenting on the subject, Maria Martens, Rapporteur of the Committee on Development said, “In my recent report on EUAfrika relations I strongly argue for more insight in and accountability of European development commitments. As parliament we must be able to control where and for what money is spent.”
Highlighting the lack of basic principles of accountability and transparency, Martens added, “On several occasions we have found that the Commission is using development money for other purposes than poverty alleviation. This is very worrying and makes the parliamentary control function even more necessary. My ambition is to do even better, and make sure that the development policies of the EU help more people more effectively.”
Moreover, there has been “serious concern” expressed by the parliament that the “governance profiles” developed by the Commission for each ACP country, which will guide programming for development assistance in relation to the 2.7 billion Euro additional funds under the 10th EDF, have been prepared without any participatory element. In this sphere again the parliament has asked “The Commission to consult and inform the European Parliament and the Council on the follow-up and the implementation of these funds in order to make sure they are allocated to governance initiatives” and allied programmes.
There is hope, as the Development Committee is set to produce in 2008 an important report which will consist of the main political conclusions of the Committee regarding the Commission’s actions in development.One of the main concerns expressed by development pundits is that the Development Cooperation Instrument (DCI) is often used for other purposes than strictly for poverty reduction.
The European Commission, the executive arm of the EU, has been managing hundreds of millions in humanitarian and development aid but it seems it is yet to learn the importance of linking aid to accountability, transparency, and respect for human rights based on the local culture and civilisations.
European citizens are firm believers in respect for human rights, and, to appease them, there is always a lot of talk on the subject, but without access to potable water, basic foods and bare essential drugs, is it possible for the hungry suffering masses to visualise a rosy picture of democracy, human rights and power to people portrayed by the Commission? The answer is an emphatic no.
In recent times, the West has been claiming China has made big inroads into the African continent, forgetting that one of the oldest projects that Beijing did was the Tan-Zam Railway from Tanzania to Zambia. There is no doubt that China today is acting in the form of a hungry monster gourmandising on available raw materials and energy resources, and is bulldozing its way through Africa, intentionally ignoring the human rights records of regimes which are pariah to western aid for their dictatorial governance methods.
But we forget that we are expecting human rights evaluation from a single Communist-party ruled state which ruthlessly nips in the bud even any smell of dissenting voices in its domestic arena. This is the simple reason why Robert Mugabe in Zimbabwe and Omar al-Beshir in Sudan are getting what they get from China. But the EU, the preacher of human values and upholders of democratic traditions, needs to get its act together and for that the European Parliament, the only democratically- and-directly elected European institution, has started doing the needful.
The Development Committee of the European parliament has had a legal right to scrutinise “the Country, Regional and Thematic strategy papers and Annual Action Plans” since this year. To be more accountable to European citizens - to whom the European Parliament is answerable - the Development Committee got the legal element, added to the political right of parliament, to control the EU executive, which is taken for granted as “God-given” in any functioning democracy.
According to committee sources, the EP has taken up the possibility to do this by organising into workgroups and systematically scrutinising the mentioned documents. This has already resulted in four resolutions in 2007 that have gone through plenary which indicate that the executive has overstepped its mandate.
Commenting on the subject, Maria Martens, Rapporteur of the Committee on Development said, “In my recent report on EUAfrika relations I strongly argue for more insight in and accountability of European development commitments. As parliament we must be able to control where and for what money is spent.”
Highlighting the lack of basic principles of accountability and transparency, Martens added, “On several occasions we have found that the Commission is using development money for other purposes than poverty alleviation. This is very worrying and makes the parliamentary control function even more necessary. My ambition is to do even better, and make sure that the development policies of the EU help more people more effectively.”
Moreover, there has been “serious concern” expressed by the parliament that the “governance profiles” developed by the Commission for each ACP country, which will guide programming for development assistance in relation to the 2.7 billion Euro additional funds under the 10th EDF, have been prepared without any participatory element. In this sphere again the parliament has asked “The Commission to consult and inform the European Parliament and the Council on the follow-up and the implementation of these funds in order to make sure they are allocated to governance initiatives” and allied programmes.
There is hope, as the Development Committee is set to produce in 2008 an important report which will consist of the main political conclusions of the Committee regarding the Commission’s actions in development.One of the main concerns expressed by development pundits is that the Development Cooperation Instrument (DCI) is often used for other purposes than strictly for poverty reduction.
Tuesday, October 16, 2007
Pesticides sneak in the EP
War of words on the pros and cons of usage
Since the days of yore, the role played by pesticides in the agriculture sector can not be denied but with the advent of synthetic products, the accompanying dangers to humans have multiplied. The European Parliament, the only directly-elected European institution, is set to vote on new legislation regarding the authorisation, sale and use of hazardous pesticides in the European Union.
Commenting on the subject after a September vote in the EP Environment Committee (ENVI) on her report revising existing legislation on pesticide authorisations, German Green MEP and rapporteur Hiltrud Breyer said, “Pesticides are toxic substances, manufactured with the intention of killing, yet they end up on our plates and, ultimately, in our bodies. Future legislation must ensure that pesticides that are dangerous for consumers and the environment are gradually taken off the market, a fact that was strongly made in my report, which was adopted by the ENVI Committee today.”
Breyer called for more applied research in the sector saying, “Well-designed provisions for substitution of harmful substances with less dangerous ones can create a win-win situation: reducing risk for consumers, users and the environment, while at the same time stimulating innovation in the chemical industry. This approach should be strengthened for EU-wide approval of active substances, as well as for national authorisations of pesticide products.”
In view of the upcoming vote in the European Parliament, an event organised on the Brussels premises of EP took additional significance. Presenting its findings, Milieudefensie (Friends of the Earth Netherlands) and Pesticide Action Network Europe said that in July 2007 they had purchased eight fruit items from the GB Express supermarket in the European Parliament building (Brussels) and analysed them for the presence of pesticide residues.
“All 28 pesticides detected have known or suspected links with negative impacts on human health, while residues on apricot, grapes and oranges exceeded legal limits, making these fruits illegal to sell,” they alleged. The statement added, “In total, the eight fruit samples analysed contained some 28 different pesticide residues, including 10 known carcinogens, three neurotoxins, three developmental toxins, and eight suspected endocrine disruptors.
Two of contaminants are classified as being ‘Highly Hazardous’. None of the food items was pesticide-free.” Three of the eight food samples analysed (apricot, grapes, orange) contained pesticide residues in excess of EC Maximum Residue Limits (MRLs) – thus rendering their sale illegal.
The apricot contained excessive levels of a suspected endocrine disruptor, one bunch of grapes showed illegal amounts of a known carcinogen, and the oranges were contaminated with elevated concentrations of two different pesticides, both linked with cancer and reproductive or developmental toxicity.
The Belgian-grown strawberries contained a staggering 14 different pesticide residues, of which five are known carcinogens.
The oranges, grown in Spain, contained the toxic pesticide imazalil at levels substantially above the “Acceptable Daily Intake” for a five-year old toddler.
Commenting on the results, MEP Breyer said, “The result of this pesticide test is alarming. It clearly shows that it is high time to better protect consumers and the environment from the harmful effects of dangerous pesticides.” “The results come as a big worry to all parents wanting to make sure that their children grow up healthily. Times and again pesticides are found in residues which exceed the provisions of the EU baby food directive by up to 200 percent. Children are especially susceptible to toxic pesticides. There are over 90 pesticides which harm children’s neurological development and impair their IQ.”
“These findings represent a total indictment of food products on sale in the EU,” said Elliott Cannell, a spokesperson for Pesticides Action Network PAN Europe. “And most of these fruit items were grown here too. All eight pieces of fruit that we tested contained toxic substances that simply shouldn’t be in the European food chain.”
“Three percent of EU food products contain pesticide residues above what is suspected to be harmless in the longer term,” said Dr Ludo Holsbeek, an Ecotoxicologist from the Vrije Universiteit Brussels. “Even more than with the European Chemicals regulation, the new regulation on plant protection products offers the chance of a healthier environment and better food protection – all this without endangering agriculture.” “The goals of creating a healthier environment and better food protection are not in contradiction with the principles of long term sustainable agriculture, nor with the search for new, less stable, non-bioaccumulative and non-environmentally harmful pesticides,” Holsbeek added.
Agreeing, “The root cause of food contamination is very simple,” Cannell aptly put it, “We spray excessive quantities of toxic chemicals onto our food as it’s growing in the field. So it’s no wonder that many of these substances end up on our dining tables.”
On the other hand, agriculture sector pundits pointed to the fact that the approval and use of pesticides is put under strict controls by the EFSA (the European Food Safety Agency) and by the competent authorities in the members states, participating in this process with environmental authorities.
The European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) is working under a tough deadline until December 2008 to complete its review of existing active substances in plant protection products. It has more than 300 crop protection products to process, but it is only able to examine four products per month.
The National Farmers’ Union NFU, representing farmers in England and Wales recently lamented this unrealistic deadline and called for an extension of this time barrier. NFU vice President Paul Temple said, “Farmers face having their hands tied by a ridiculous situation of not being able to protect their crops if this arbitrary political deadline stays in place. It is a bureaucratic decision, which has nothing to do with food or environmental safety.”
Farmers’ Guardian cited Temple as saying, “We don’t want manufacturers having to withdraw products which they have spent hundreds of thousands of pounds getting onto the market simply because of a political deadline. Pesticide resistance will become an issue if farmers are forced to use one or a very small range of products.”
After a visit to EFSA’s offices in Parma, Italy, Temple added: “We were very impressed by the independence and firmly science-based nature of EFSA. They have a significant and challenging job to cover all the required issues from 27 member states, and should not be put under pressure by needless deadlines.”
Speaking in Belgium another agriculture guru said, “Healthy crops contribute to improve the environment, compensating the emissions of CO2 and other greenhouse gases of other economic and social activities and to generate wealth and jobs in rural areas. It offers consumers a diversified basket of products and favours the maintenance of a healthful diet.”
“For this reason EFSA has set Maximum Residue Limits (MRLs) for each crop to protect consumers from any possible harm arising from residues. So even eating food with residues at the maximum limit will not cause any adverse health effects. This is largely because the responsible on-farm treatment of a given crop leads to even lower residues than the MRL. Processing, storage, washing and cooking all combine to further reduce residues. It is important to recognise that a residue does not mean a risk. No groups of the population are exposed to residues in food at levels that threaten their health,” added one market analyst who did not want to be named.
“It is regrettable that large retailers as GB/Carrefour have not understood the message and confront their consumers with non-conform products. Quality has a price and this should be known by each responsible purchase manager of the superstores,” regretted the Belgian agriculture pundit.
Since the days of yore, the role played by pesticides in the agriculture sector can not be denied but with the advent of synthetic products, the accompanying dangers to humans have multiplied. The European Parliament, the only directly-elected European institution, is set to vote on new legislation regarding the authorisation, sale and use of hazardous pesticides in the European Union.
Commenting on the subject after a September vote in the EP Environment Committee (ENVI) on her report revising existing legislation on pesticide authorisations, German Green MEP and rapporteur Hiltrud Breyer said, “Pesticides are toxic substances, manufactured with the intention of killing, yet they end up on our plates and, ultimately, in our bodies. Future legislation must ensure that pesticides that are dangerous for consumers and the environment are gradually taken off the market, a fact that was strongly made in my report, which was adopted by the ENVI Committee today.”
Breyer called for more applied research in the sector saying, “Well-designed provisions for substitution of harmful substances with less dangerous ones can create a win-win situation: reducing risk for consumers, users and the environment, while at the same time stimulating innovation in the chemical industry. This approach should be strengthened for EU-wide approval of active substances, as well as for national authorisations of pesticide products.”
In view of the upcoming vote in the European Parliament, an event organised on the Brussels premises of EP took additional significance. Presenting its findings, Milieudefensie (Friends of the Earth Netherlands) and Pesticide Action Network Europe said that in July 2007 they had purchased eight fruit items from the GB Express supermarket in the European Parliament building (Brussels) and analysed them for the presence of pesticide residues.
“All 28 pesticides detected have known or suspected links with negative impacts on human health, while residues on apricot, grapes and oranges exceeded legal limits, making these fruits illegal to sell,” they alleged. The statement added, “In total, the eight fruit samples analysed contained some 28 different pesticide residues, including 10 known carcinogens, three neurotoxins, three developmental toxins, and eight suspected endocrine disruptors.
Two of contaminants are classified as being ‘Highly Hazardous’. None of the food items was pesticide-free.” Three of the eight food samples analysed (apricot, grapes, orange) contained pesticide residues in excess of EC Maximum Residue Limits (MRLs) – thus rendering their sale illegal.
The apricot contained excessive levels of a suspected endocrine disruptor, one bunch of grapes showed illegal amounts of a known carcinogen, and the oranges were contaminated with elevated concentrations of two different pesticides, both linked with cancer and reproductive or developmental toxicity.
The Belgian-grown strawberries contained a staggering 14 different pesticide residues, of which five are known carcinogens.
The oranges, grown in Spain, contained the toxic pesticide imazalil at levels substantially above the “Acceptable Daily Intake” for a five-year old toddler.
Commenting on the results, MEP Breyer said, “The result of this pesticide test is alarming. It clearly shows that it is high time to better protect consumers and the environment from the harmful effects of dangerous pesticides.” “The results come as a big worry to all parents wanting to make sure that their children grow up healthily. Times and again pesticides are found in residues which exceed the provisions of the EU baby food directive by up to 200 percent. Children are especially susceptible to toxic pesticides. There are over 90 pesticides which harm children’s neurological development and impair their IQ.”
“These findings represent a total indictment of food products on sale in the EU,” said Elliott Cannell, a spokesperson for Pesticides Action Network PAN Europe. “And most of these fruit items were grown here too. All eight pieces of fruit that we tested contained toxic substances that simply shouldn’t be in the European food chain.”
“Three percent of EU food products contain pesticide residues above what is suspected to be harmless in the longer term,” said Dr Ludo Holsbeek, an Ecotoxicologist from the Vrije Universiteit Brussels. “Even more than with the European Chemicals regulation, the new regulation on plant protection products offers the chance of a healthier environment and better food protection – all this without endangering agriculture.” “The goals of creating a healthier environment and better food protection are not in contradiction with the principles of long term sustainable agriculture, nor with the search for new, less stable, non-bioaccumulative and non-environmentally harmful pesticides,” Holsbeek added.
Agreeing, “The root cause of food contamination is very simple,” Cannell aptly put it, “We spray excessive quantities of toxic chemicals onto our food as it’s growing in the field. So it’s no wonder that many of these substances end up on our dining tables.”
On the other hand, agriculture sector pundits pointed to the fact that the approval and use of pesticides is put under strict controls by the EFSA (the European Food Safety Agency) and by the competent authorities in the members states, participating in this process with environmental authorities.
The European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) is working under a tough deadline until December 2008 to complete its review of existing active substances in plant protection products. It has more than 300 crop protection products to process, but it is only able to examine four products per month.
The National Farmers’ Union NFU, representing farmers in England and Wales recently lamented this unrealistic deadline and called for an extension of this time barrier. NFU vice President Paul Temple said, “Farmers face having their hands tied by a ridiculous situation of not being able to protect their crops if this arbitrary political deadline stays in place. It is a bureaucratic decision, which has nothing to do with food or environmental safety.”
Farmers’ Guardian cited Temple as saying, “We don’t want manufacturers having to withdraw products which they have spent hundreds of thousands of pounds getting onto the market simply because of a political deadline. Pesticide resistance will become an issue if farmers are forced to use one or a very small range of products.”
After a visit to EFSA’s offices in Parma, Italy, Temple added: “We were very impressed by the independence and firmly science-based nature of EFSA. They have a significant and challenging job to cover all the required issues from 27 member states, and should not be put under pressure by needless deadlines.”
Speaking in Belgium another agriculture guru said, “Healthy crops contribute to improve the environment, compensating the emissions of CO2 and other greenhouse gases of other economic and social activities and to generate wealth and jobs in rural areas. It offers consumers a diversified basket of products and favours the maintenance of a healthful diet.”
“For this reason EFSA has set Maximum Residue Limits (MRLs) for each crop to protect consumers from any possible harm arising from residues. So even eating food with residues at the maximum limit will not cause any adverse health effects. This is largely because the responsible on-farm treatment of a given crop leads to even lower residues than the MRL. Processing, storage, washing and cooking all combine to further reduce residues. It is important to recognise that a residue does not mean a risk. No groups of the population are exposed to residues in food at levels that threaten their health,” added one market analyst who did not want to be named.
“It is regrettable that large retailers as GB/Carrefour have not understood the message and confront their consumers with non-conform products. Quality has a price and this should be known by each responsible purchase manager of the superstores,” regretted the Belgian agriculture pundit.
Monday, October 15, 2007
Wahhabism tightens grip over Kosovo
Ahtisaari’s plan for independence may help terrorism flourish
Islam has flourished in the Balkans over the centuries with a peaceful and modern outlook but over the last decade, especially now with the talk of Kosovo independence, there are questions being raised about the external influence in once-tranquil religious relations.
Wahhabism, a fundamental form of Islam with origins in Saudi Arabia has been rearing its ugly head of intolerance in the Balkans starting from Bosnia a decade ago. With the recent manifestation of its hardcore modus operandi in Kosovo, which has more than a 90 percent Muslim population, the ongoing impact of Wahhabism demands serious attention.
First, let’s look at origins of Wahhabism.In the deserts of the Middle East, Muhammad al-Saud, a tribal leader, had in 1750 formed an alliance with Muhammad bin Abd al-Wahhab, a religious leader and al- Wahhab’s name defines the Islamic interpretation that remains the Saudi Arabian kingdom’s ideology. The present Saudi Arabia was formed in 1902, when Abdul-Aziz ibn Saud captured the town of Riyadh but its greatest victory came in 1924, when it captured Mecca from the Hashemite dynasty that had controlled the city for centuries.
With the arrival of the 70s, the mud houses and camel caravans in Saudi Arabia started coexisting with the ultra-modern infrastructure. The newly found wealth of “Petro-dollars” brought phenomenal changes in a few decades. But like every “gift,” this one also came with a package and that has thrown young Saudis to face many nontraditional problems.
According to official estimates, the last two decades have seen the native-born population in Saudi Arabia doubling to nearly 18 million but on the other hand the per-capita income during the same period dwindled to almost half of what it was.
Add to that unemployment figure of about 30 percent in the adult male population with no chance of finding a job in sight. Now, compare that to the average monthly stipend of about USD 30,000 for a low ranking hierarchy prince in the Saudi ruling family, and, according to rough estimates the number of them is as high as 25,000. In the process, the Saudi government gets about 50 percent of the oil revenue as the rest is pocketed by the Saudi royal family at source.
Ironically, most Saudis are aware of this fact and that fuels the unhappiness in the Vox Populi.It is thus not the lack of wealth but a disproportionate distribution system that is one of the major factors that attracts Saudi youth to terrorism which according to sources has the silent support of most people under 30.
Getting uncomfortable with domestic unrest, the Saudi ruling family in 1980s decided to export this home-grown militancy to Afghanistan to fight Soviets and the rest is history.Today, Wahhabism needs new breeding grounds along with training and survival fields. It will not be long after the “independence” of Kosovo that the Kosovoan version, of “Muttawa,” the religious police since 1926 of Wahhabism in Saudi Arabia that enforces prayer five times a day, monitors mobile SMS and arrests women for failing to cover themselves completely, will be a reality on the streets of Kosovo.
One look at the local media reports in Kosovo and neighbouring arena will suffice to convince any sceptic about the dangers of Wahhabism form of Islam. The UN and Kosovo police in the southern part of the divided town of Kosovska Mitrovica on September 19 arrested one of the leaders of the Wahhabite movement in southern Serbia and Kosovo, according to local media reports.
According to these reports the arrested man was Bajram Aslani, allegedly the main Kosovo connection with the recentlyarrested Wahhabi group in Novi Pazar, Southern Serbia. The local reports suggested that the Belgrade Special prosecution for Organised crime on September 14 pressed charges against a group of 15 Wahhabites from Novi Pazar for terrorism and unlawful possession of arms.Some of the defendants were arrested near Novi Pazar on March 16 and large quantities of weapons, ammunition and explosives were found during the operation.
Moreover, in late April reports stated that in the village of Donja Trnava near Novi Pazar, the police had a clash with two Wahabis, which resulted in the killing of one of them, Ismail Prentic, and the wounding of one police officer.
Two recent explicit cases involving Wahhabis in Kosovo can be put forward in addition to every day media reports of Wahhabis being arrested, exchanging fire with law-enforcing agencies or simply taking over mosques that have been there for hundreds of years in Turkish style and converting them to conform to Wahhabi way of architecture and worship.
The first case is in the Gazimestan area which has historic values with a famous medieval battlefield dating back to 1389, stretching from Pristina to Mitrovica. In addition to the remains of Serbian Prince Lazar and Ottoman Sultan Murad, there in the vicinity are two shrines called “Turbe” existing for hundreds of years and have never got disturbed until recently when these were vandalised.
According to local reliable sources who wanted to remain anonymous for obvious reasons, it was allegedly the work of Wahhabis as they believe tombs should not be kept as shrines. The allegations are strengthened by the fact that even in Saudi Arabia there have been such cases like the Jannatul- Baqi, the famous cemetery in Medina, also known as the “Tree garden of Heaven,” which is alleged to have been destroyed in order to keep up with the Wahhabi ideal of not worshipping graves.
Another important case that did stir strong local resentment happened in Prizren, an old historic town that has a history of multiethnic population represented by an Orthodox Church, a Catholic Church and a Mosque, more than 350 years old from the days of Ottoman Empire. According to local sources, the mosque was getting refurbished with Saudi money and the new Imam allegedly preaches Wahhabism. The local Muslim population is disgruntled with the actions of the new Imam who without consultations first made living quarters for himself as an extension of the ancient Mosque and then replaced “irreplaceable” decorative wooden work on the inside ceiling and other parts with new aluminium frames thus the Mosque lost forever its historic heritage.
Another practice that is prevalent in Kosovo today is Wahhabis allegedly paying poor people to wear visible signs of Islam. According to local sources the alleged rate today varies from 100 Euro to 300 Euro per month depending on how much of face or body is covered in Islamic clothing.Money talks and it sure does as is evident with its contribution to the replacement of moderate Islam in Kosovo with the financing of “Islamic studies” trips for youngsters. After a stint of such religious learning abroad in Saudi Arabia or Egypt, lasting around six to 12 months, the youngsters upon returning back in Kosovo sport Islamic beards and robes instead of their jeans.
Watching those alarming signs in Kosovo, socio-religious pundits and political observers warn that slow but steady moderate Islam with its Turkish roots is on its way out and with the talk of independence in Kosovo picking up, soon the days when girls sport western clothes will be history. The mix of Saudi Wahhabism with their oil money is proving dangerous to the world.
The question that comes to mind is: Was it a coincidence that 15 of the 19 hijackers of September 11 terrorist attacks on the US were Saudi citizens and so is the mastermind Osama bin Laden? In a Catch- 22 situation, the West is financing for spread of fundamental Islam in the form of Wahhabism which will boomerang to hurt them. By supporting the UN envoy for Kosovo, Martti Ahtisaari’s plan for Kosovo’s independence, many Western governments are unwittingly working to carve out a safe haven for criminality and fundamentalist Islam in the heart of Europe.
It’s time to rethink Kosovo independence: another Taliban in the making and this time right in the heart of European Continent from where it will be easier not only to strike in Europe but also travel across the Atlantic.
Islam has flourished in the Balkans over the centuries with a peaceful and modern outlook but over the last decade, especially now with the talk of Kosovo independence, there are questions being raised about the external influence in once-tranquil religious relations.
Wahhabism, a fundamental form of Islam with origins in Saudi Arabia has been rearing its ugly head of intolerance in the Balkans starting from Bosnia a decade ago. With the recent manifestation of its hardcore modus operandi in Kosovo, which has more than a 90 percent Muslim population, the ongoing impact of Wahhabism demands serious attention.
First, let’s look at origins of Wahhabism.In the deserts of the Middle East, Muhammad al-Saud, a tribal leader, had in 1750 formed an alliance with Muhammad bin Abd al-Wahhab, a religious leader and al- Wahhab’s name defines the Islamic interpretation that remains the Saudi Arabian kingdom’s ideology. The present Saudi Arabia was formed in 1902, when Abdul-Aziz ibn Saud captured the town of Riyadh but its greatest victory came in 1924, when it captured Mecca from the Hashemite dynasty that had controlled the city for centuries.
With the arrival of the 70s, the mud houses and camel caravans in Saudi Arabia started coexisting with the ultra-modern infrastructure. The newly found wealth of “Petro-dollars” brought phenomenal changes in a few decades. But like every “gift,” this one also came with a package and that has thrown young Saudis to face many nontraditional problems.
According to official estimates, the last two decades have seen the native-born population in Saudi Arabia doubling to nearly 18 million but on the other hand the per-capita income during the same period dwindled to almost half of what it was.
Add to that unemployment figure of about 30 percent in the adult male population with no chance of finding a job in sight. Now, compare that to the average monthly stipend of about USD 30,000 for a low ranking hierarchy prince in the Saudi ruling family, and, according to rough estimates the number of them is as high as 25,000. In the process, the Saudi government gets about 50 percent of the oil revenue as the rest is pocketed by the Saudi royal family at source.
Ironically, most Saudis are aware of this fact and that fuels the unhappiness in the Vox Populi.It is thus not the lack of wealth but a disproportionate distribution system that is one of the major factors that attracts Saudi youth to terrorism which according to sources has the silent support of most people under 30.
Getting uncomfortable with domestic unrest, the Saudi ruling family in 1980s decided to export this home-grown militancy to Afghanistan to fight Soviets and the rest is history.Today, Wahhabism needs new breeding grounds along with training and survival fields. It will not be long after the “independence” of Kosovo that the Kosovoan version, of “Muttawa,” the religious police since 1926 of Wahhabism in Saudi Arabia that enforces prayer five times a day, monitors mobile SMS and arrests women for failing to cover themselves completely, will be a reality on the streets of Kosovo.
One look at the local media reports in Kosovo and neighbouring arena will suffice to convince any sceptic about the dangers of Wahhabism form of Islam. The UN and Kosovo police in the southern part of the divided town of Kosovska Mitrovica on September 19 arrested one of the leaders of the Wahhabite movement in southern Serbia and Kosovo, according to local media reports.
According to these reports the arrested man was Bajram Aslani, allegedly the main Kosovo connection with the recentlyarrested Wahhabi group in Novi Pazar, Southern Serbia. The local reports suggested that the Belgrade Special prosecution for Organised crime on September 14 pressed charges against a group of 15 Wahhabites from Novi Pazar for terrorism and unlawful possession of arms.Some of the defendants were arrested near Novi Pazar on March 16 and large quantities of weapons, ammunition and explosives were found during the operation.
Moreover, in late April reports stated that in the village of Donja Trnava near Novi Pazar, the police had a clash with two Wahabis, which resulted in the killing of one of them, Ismail Prentic, and the wounding of one police officer.
Two recent explicit cases involving Wahhabis in Kosovo can be put forward in addition to every day media reports of Wahhabis being arrested, exchanging fire with law-enforcing agencies or simply taking over mosques that have been there for hundreds of years in Turkish style and converting them to conform to Wahhabi way of architecture and worship.
The first case is in the Gazimestan area which has historic values with a famous medieval battlefield dating back to 1389, stretching from Pristina to Mitrovica. In addition to the remains of Serbian Prince Lazar and Ottoman Sultan Murad, there in the vicinity are two shrines called “Turbe” existing for hundreds of years and have never got disturbed until recently when these were vandalised.
According to local reliable sources who wanted to remain anonymous for obvious reasons, it was allegedly the work of Wahhabis as they believe tombs should not be kept as shrines. The allegations are strengthened by the fact that even in Saudi Arabia there have been such cases like the Jannatul- Baqi, the famous cemetery in Medina, also known as the “Tree garden of Heaven,” which is alleged to have been destroyed in order to keep up with the Wahhabi ideal of not worshipping graves.
Another important case that did stir strong local resentment happened in Prizren, an old historic town that has a history of multiethnic population represented by an Orthodox Church, a Catholic Church and a Mosque, more than 350 years old from the days of Ottoman Empire. According to local sources, the mosque was getting refurbished with Saudi money and the new Imam allegedly preaches Wahhabism. The local Muslim population is disgruntled with the actions of the new Imam who without consultations first made living quarters for himself as an extension of the ancient Mosque and then replaced “irreplaceable” decorative wooden work on the inside ceiling and other parts with new aluminium frames thus the Mosque lost forever its historic heritage.
Another practice that is prevalent in Kosovo today is Wahhabis allegedly paying poor people to wear visible signs of Islam. According to local sources the alleged rate today varies from 100 Euro to 300 Euro per month depending on how much of face or body is covered in Islamic clothing.Money talks and it sure does as is evident with its contribution to the replacement of moderate Islam in Kosovo with the financing of “Islamic studies” trips for youngsters. After a stint of such religious learning abroad in Saudi Arabia or Egypt, lasting around six to 12 months, the youngsters upon returning back in Kosovo sport Islamic beards and robes instead of their jeans.
Watching those alarming signs in Kosovo, socio-religious pundits and political observers warn that slow but steady moderate Islam with its Turkish roots is on its way out and with the talk of independence in Kosovo picking up, soon the days when girls sport western clothes will be history. The mix of Saudi Wahhabism with their oil money is proving dangerous to the world.
The question that comes to mind is: Was it a coincidence that 15 of the 19 hijackers of September 11 terrorist attacks on the US were Saudi citizens and so is the mastermind Osama bin Laden? In a Catch- 22 situation, the West is financing for spread of fundamental Islam in the form of Wahhabism which will boomerang to hurt them. By supporting the UN envoy for Kosovo, Martti Ahtisaari’s plan for Kosovo’s independence, many Western governments are unwittingly working to carve out a safe haven for criminality and fundamentalist Islam in the heart of Europe.
It’s time to rethink Kosovo independence: another Taliban in the making and this time right in the heart of European Continent from where it will be easier not only to strike in Europe but also travel across the Atlantic.
Another dilemma: EU money for high-tech or food innovation
Another dilemma: EU money for high-tech or food innovation
Galileo, the satellite navigation system and the European Institute of Technology EIT, two of the dream projects of European leaders got the financial backing of the European commission, the executive arm of the European Union.
The Commission last week decided to overlook the welfare of the European citizens with proposals to finance the extra 2.4 billion Euro for Galileo and yet another 309 million Euro for the European Institute of Technology (EIT) through a smart revision of the Financial Framework 2007-2013. The proposal will enable the commission to transfer 2.189 billion Euro from the agriculture budget within the margin available in 2007 and 2008 under heading “Preservation and Management of Natural Resources.”
According to common knowledge, the “Preservation & management of natural resources” programme is intended to assist European farmers in the EU citizens’ demand for safe, quality food, produced without unnecessary waste, and a healthy environment. In 2003-4 the reforms of the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) were ending to a large extent the unhealthy link between subsidies and production. Farmers are since then free to produce what consumers want in a truly competitive market, while ensuring higher standards of environmental protection, food quality and animal welfare.
Moreover, the commission had announced proposals to increase spending on Rural Development to boost growth and create jobs in rural areas - in line with the Lisbon Strategy. Thus the money was set for use not only for innovation and diversification but also for more agricultural activities.
In its quest to quench the thirst of scientific programmes, the Commission announced that these funds which were meant for the benefit of the European citizens won’t be needed, thus leaving a staggering margin of two billion Euro under the ceiling in 2008. To a layperson, this can not be explained as price tags on food shelves are renewed upward everyday and coming after a long period of relative price stability in the food sector. This is more than obvious to every person. Prices of milk and dairy products, vegetables oils have climbed up and the latest flour and bread price hikes have made headlines in all media outlets with Italians deciding to go without pasta one day recently.
The wave of demand that is sweeping across the Continents is also helped by panic buying on the Asian and South American areas as food shortage looms. Although harvest failures, crop mismanagement and other causes can not be ruled out, there is a clear cut case of high subsidies in the European Union for valuable fields being set-a-side and as high subsidies are pushing for the production of energy raw materials.
According to media reports, this year in Germany alone two million hectares out of the 12 million hectares arable land or about 17 percent of the total is dedicated for energy crops. The obvious fallout is on the areas for cultivation land for food and feeds.
On the heels of this turmoil came the tug-of-war between French President Nicolas Sarkozy and European commissioner for Agriculture and Rural Development, Mariann Fischer Boel. With Sarkozy throwing his weight behind communitarian preference, the commissioner, during the informal meeting of agriculture ministers in Portugal, rejected that the future CAP will be based on the principle of communitarian preference that favours the domestic agricultural productions.
The spokesman for Commissioner Boel declared that “It is not in our interest to turn the communitarian preference as a strength of European agriculture,” since the EU has become a net agricultural product exporter. We see opportunities to export our foods of quality in markets like China and India,” and added that the communitarian preference can only be used “in relation to our international obligations within the framework of the World Trade Organization.”
Stressing the need for an European protectionism policy while talking in the negotiations in the WTO, Sarkozy declared that “the developing nations want the rights of the big nations, but they must also accept the obligations, consider that they have only rights and have no obligations in a system of multilateral commerce” and emphasised this to India, China, Argentina and Brazil.
The French president added that “We cannot impose rules to our producers” and at the same time allow imports from other countries that impose the “environmental, social, fiscal and monetary dumping.” Sarkozy stirred not only strong reaction from commissioner Boel but also from trade commissioner, Peter Mandelson, who declared that accusations of the social dumping cannot be made because that would mean that the developed countries are not prepared to accept the comparative advantage that grant the low labour costs of third countries.
With this war of words going on at the top level, the farmers have nothing to gain except to miss out on a European tool to produce what consumers want in a truly competitive market, while ensuring higher standards of environmental protection, food quality and animal welfare. Last, but not least, it is incomprehensible for ordinary European citizens to fid that the Commission on one hand, reiterates at every possible opportunity strong interest in innovative farming and the creation of jobs in rural areas - in line with the Lisbon Strategy while on the other hand it is ready to siphon money out of agricultural sector to pump into high tech satellite applications. Only time can tell which one of the two can generate more jobs: Satellite industry or applied agricultural innovations.
Galileo, the satellite navigation system and the European Institute of Technology EIT, two of the dream projects of European leaders got the financial backing of the European commission, the executive arm of the European Union.
The Commission last week decided to overlook the welfare of the European citizens with proposals to finance the extra 2.4 billion Euro for Galileo and yet another 309 million Euro for the European Institute of Technology (EIT) through a smart revision of the Financial Framework 2007-2013. The proposal will enable the commission to transfer 2.189 billion Euro from the agriculture budget within the margin available in 2007 and 2008 under heading “Preservation and Management of Natural Resources.”
According to common knowledge, the “Preservation & management of natural resources” programme is intended to assist European farmers in the EU citizens’ demand for safe, quality food, produced without unnecessary waste, and a healthy environment. In 2003-4 the reforms of the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) were ending to a large extent the unhealthy link between subsidies and production. Farmers are since then free to produce what consumers want in a truly competitive market, while ensuring higher standards of environmental protection, food quality and animal welfare.
Moreover, the commission had announced proposals to increase spending on Rural Development to boost growth and create jobs in rural areas - in line with the Lisbon Strategy. Thus the money was set for use not only for innovation and diversification but also for more agricultural activities.
In its quest to quench the thirst of scientific programmes, the Commission announced that these funds which were meant for the benefit of the European citizens won’t be needed, thus leaving a staggering margin of two billion Euro under the ceiling in 2008. To a layperson, this can not be explained as price tags on food shelves are renewed upward everyday and coming after a long period of relative price stability in the food sector. This is more than obvious to every person. Prices of milk and dairy products, vegetables oils have climbed up and the latest flour and bread price hikes have made headlines in all media outlets with Italians deciding to go without pasta one day recently.
The wave of demand that is sweeping across the Continents is also helped by panic buying on the Asian and South American areas as food shortage looms. Although harvest failures, crop mismanagement and other causes can not be ruled out, there is a clear cut case of high subsidies in the European Union for valuable fields being set-a-side and as high subsidies are pushing for the production of energy raw materials.
According to media reports, this year in Germany alone two million hectares out of the 12 million hectares arable land or about 17 percent of the total is dedicated for energy crops. The obvious fallout is on the areas for cultivation land for food and feeds.
On the heels of this turmoil came the tug-of-war between French President Nicolas Sarkozy and European commissioner for Agriculture and Rural Development, Mariann Fischer Boel. With Sarkozy throwing his weight behind communitarian preference, the commissioner, during the informal meeting of agriculture ministers in Portugal, rejected that the future CAP will be based on the principle of communitarian preference that favours the domestic agricultural productions.
The spokesman for Commissioner Boel declared that “It is not in our interest to turn the communitarian preference as a strength of European agriculture,” since the EU has become a net agricultural product exporter. We see opportunities to export our foods of quality in markets like China and India,” and added that the communitarian preference can only be used “in relation to our international obligations within the framework of the World Trade Organization.”
Stressing the need for an European protectionism policy while talking in the negotiations in the WTO, Sarkozy declared that “the developing nations want the rights of the big nations, but they must also accept the obligations, consider that they have only rights and have no obligations in a system of multilateral commerce” and emphasised this to India, China, Argentina and Brazil.
The French president added that “We cannot impose rules to our producers” and at the same time allow imports from other countries that impose the “environmental, social, fiscal and monetary dumping.” Sarkozy stirred not only strong reaction from commissioner Boel but also from trade commissioner, Peter Mandelson, who declared that accusations of the social dumping cannot be made because that would mean that the developed countries are not prepared to accept the comparative advantage that grant the low labour costs of third countries.
With this war of words going on at the top level, the farmers have nothing to gain except to miss out on a European tool to produce what consumers want in a truly competitive market, while ensuring higher standards of environmental protection, food quality and animal welfare. Last, but not least, it is incomprehensible for ordinary European citizens to fid that the Commission on one hand, reiterates at every possible opportunity strong interest in innovative farming and the creation of jobs in rural areas - in line with the Lisbon Strategy while on the other hand it is ready to siphon money out of agricultural sector to pump into high tech satellite applications. Only time can tell which one of the two can generate more jobs: Satellite industry or applied agricultural innovations.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
