Tag: featured

Posted on

Russian food sanctions against the EU

The Russian ban on the import of certain food products from the EU (and some other countries) has led to a chorus of appeals from member states and from farm groups for aid and compensation. The Russian ban has created an immediate problem in the fruit and vegetables sector, where the summer harvest for fruits is in full swing, there is a high dependence on the Russian market, and the produce is perishable with few immediate alternative outlets. But the overall scale of the problem needs to be kept in perspective. In this post, I present the data on the countries and products affected.
To date, the response of the Commissioner and the Commission has been measured and appropriate. In his first statement on the day after the ban came into force, the Agriculture Commissioner acknowledged the concerns of farmers, requested a potential impact analysis from his officials, and called a management committee meeting which took place yesterday.… Read the rest

Posted on

WTO failure on trade facilitation agreement puts question mark over Doha timeline

On Thursday this week, the WTO Director-General Robert Azevêdo admitted to failure in concluding the negotiations to adopt the Protocol of Amendment on the Trade Facilitation Agreement (TFA) by 31 July as had been agreed by Ministers at the WTO Ministerial Conference in Bali last December. The Protocol of Amendment was intended to start the process to formally insert the trade facilitation deal into the overall WTO Agreement.
The TFA was part of a carefully-balanced package at Bali designed to get substantive negotiations on the Doha Round again underway. In addition to a series of decisions and declarations on trade facilitation, agriculture, cotton, development and least developed country (LDC) issues, the Ministerial Conference had set a deadline of the end of 2014 for the Trade Negotiations Committee to develop a clearly-defined work programme on the remaining Doha Round issues. Work in Geneva had begun to focus on developing this work programme, but as Director-General Azevêdo admitted to the meeting of the WTO General Council on 25 July last, the talks were still at an early stage.… Read the rest

Posted on

The draft 2015 CAP budget

The annual budget is an important statement of any organisation’s strategic priorities. The EU budget is no exception, but its sheer size and complexity makes it difficult for the interested lay person to interpret and to understand.
The Commission proposed a draft budget (DB) for 2015 in June, and the figures are now under negotiation between the two legislative institutions. Since the Lisbon Treaty, the annual budget is agreed by co-decision between the Council and the Parliament, although the outcome must observe the ceilings agreed in the 2014-2020 multiannual financial framework (MFF).
Once the draft budget is proposed, the Council first adopts its position and forwards it to the European Parliament (EP). The Council’s position on the DB 2015 was agreed by its Permanent Representatives’ Committee on 15 July last. This is its mandate for the negotiations with the EP under the Italian Presidency in September.
The Parliament, meanwhile, is in the process of drawing up its own position.… Read the rest

Posted on

Geographical indications (GIs) in the US-EU TTIP negotiations

The US Agriculture Secretary, Tom Vilsack, was in Brussels this week, among other things to have lunch with EU Agriculture Ministers during their monthly Council meeting. He also took the opportunity to have a discussion with Commissioner Ciolos on some of the agricultural issues that are proving difficult to resolve in the ongoing negotiations on the US-EU Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) free trade agreement.
One of these issues is the EU demand that the US should recognise and protect the EU’s list of geographical indications (GIs). Geographical Indications are defined in the WTO as “indications which identify a good as originating in the territory of a Member, or a region or locality in that territory, where a given quality, reputation or other characteristic of the good is essentially attributable to its geographical origin”. The EU recognises two types of GIs for foodstuffs – Protected Designation of Origin and Protected Geographical Indication – and similar categories for wines and spirits.… Read the rest

Posted on

Food safety in the US-EU TTIP negotiations

There is widespread concern that the ongoing negotiations on a transatlantic free trade area between the US and the EU, known as the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP), may result in a watering-down of EU food safety standards under US pressure to remove measures which are perceived as barriers to trade.
According to a report from the US-based NGO the Centre for Food Safety, “many analysts believe that a central aim of the negotiations is to dismantle many food safety regulations that corporations view as impediments to trade and profitmaking.”
Less dramatically, the European Consumer Organisation BEUC notes in its position paper that: “[…] the EU food legislative framework guarantees consumers a high level of protection and information. BEUC believes the TTIP should not lead to a downward harmonisation and that the EU should remain free to maintain, strengthen and enforce the rules it deems necessary to preserve the interests of consumers in areas such as food safety, GMOs, the use of growth promoters in livestock production or cloning.”… Read the rest

Posted on

The 2013 CAP reform and biodiversity

A recent paper in Science (unfortunately, behind a paywall unless you have access through a library or individual subscription) written by 21 authors from across Europe provides a very timely review of the impact of the recent CAP reform from the perspective how it addresses the EU’s biodiversity commitments. UPDATE There is a short summary by one of the authors here.
The EU’s overall objective in its Biodiversity Strategy for 2020 agreed in 2011 is to halt the loss of diversity and to restore degraded ecosystems. Specifically, Target 3A is to “maximise areas […] covered by biodiversity-related measures under the CAP”. While this is not a very meaningful target, it was presumably intended to imply that the CAP should do much more in the future to prevent and reverse declines in biodiversity. The authors conclude that the CAP reform does not fulfil this target.
CAP greening and biodiversity

The authors review the three main greening measures under Pillar 1 as well as the prospects for financial support to enhance biodiversity measures under Pillar 2 and find them wanting.… Read the rest

Posted on

What is happening to EU agricultural productivity growth?

Agricultural growth can come about through bringing new resources into production (new land, extension of irrigation, or input intensification per hectare) or through raising the productivity of existing resources. The appropriate measure of productivity growth in this context is Total Factor Productivity (TFP) growth, which is defined as the aggregate quantity of outputs produced by the agricultural sector divided by the aggregate quantity of inputs used to produce those outputs.

This measure contrasts with partial productivity measures such as growth in labour productivity or land productivity (yields per hectare) because an increase in these partial productivity measures can be achieved by increasing the intensity of use of other inputs (for example, crop yields can be increased by applying greater amounts of fertiliser or using more labour). Thus, partial productivity indicators do not measure ‘true’ productivity growth.

A higher level of TFP in agriculture can mean achieving greater output for the same inputs or using fewer inputs for the same level of output.… Read the rest

Posted on

Overcoming the deadlock on cultivation of GM crops in EU countries

EU policy on genetically-modified organisms (GMOs) for use in food and agriculture has been deadlocked for a number of years as member states, industry stakeholders and non-governmental organisations remain conflicted about the use of agricultural biotechnology. Three examples of the policy differences and contradictions that characterise this dossier include the following.

  • The risk assessment procedures in the authorisation process are criticised by opponents of the use of GM plants, food and feed as too lax, but on the other hand as too long-drawn-out and unnecessarily complicated by the biotech industry.
  • Member states are so divided that there is neither a sufficient majority in the Council for or against a decision to approve GM events for cultivation or food and feed use, leaving the Commission by default to take the final decision. Most recently, at the General Affairs Council last February, 19 of 28 EU countries voted against granting approval for the cultivation of a GMO maize variety, Pioneer 1507, developed by DuPont and Dow Chemical.
    • … Read the rest
    Posted on

    How to interpret cross-compliance

    Tomás García Azcárate, who maintains a very useful blog on the CAP with links to his university course notes and a series of CAP capsules, recently paid me the compliment of discussing a comment I made in an article on CAP greening on the function of cross-compliance. My comment was that “… the strong political support for the view that direct payments are, in part, recognition of the costs that the society asks farmers to bear through cross compliance implicitly undermines the “polluter pays principle. If farmers who do not receive direct payments are not expected to observe cross compliance standards, then these do not form the environmental baseline”.

    Tomás disagreed with this statement arguing that cross compliance does not oblige farmers to respect new rules. I put my hand up immediately to admit that the extract could have been clearer. It is well-known that cross compliance consists of respect for Statutory Management Requirements (SMRs) (provisions drawn from the application of relevant articles of legislation now listed in Annex II of the new horizontal Regulation (EU) No 1306/2013) as well as standards of good agricultural and environmental condition (GAEC) of land.… Read the rest

    Posted on

    Incentivising soil carbon sequestration

    Soil contains a huge amount of carbon, twice as much as in the atmosphere in the 0-30 cm layer alone. However, continuous cultivation over a long period has reduced stocks of soil organic carbon (SOC, which I will abbreviate here to soil carbon), often to dangerously low levels. The EU’s Joint Research Centre estimates that some 45% of the soils of Europe have a low or very low organic matter content (0-2% organic carbon). The main mechanism for soil carbon loss is associated with ploughing, due to increased decomposition of SOC due to soil aeration and soil aggregate destruction, increased aggregate turnover and a reduction in aggregate formation.
    Reversing this process to build up soil carbon stocks has thus the technical potential to sequester a lot of carbon. The practices to do this are now well known: they include the use of winter cover and catch crops; crop rotation; adding legumes or N-fixing crops; reduced or zero tillage; and incorporating crop residues and other organic matter.… Read the rest