Infuriating - another short-term solution

jetsonx

Infuriating - another short-term solution from the West ?

so here we go again - another hand-out from the West - another short-term
solution that helps ease the pangs of guilt.

ok, I agree its better than nothing...but the unfair trade structures are still
there....Europe still has the CAP which prevents third world famers selling their produce on european markets and the States have similar barriers to trade in place....would it not be a better idea for Geldof and Bono (their attempts are extremely laudable don't get me wrong) to campaign to get red of the trade barriers first ? (indigenous corruption of african leaders aside)

murphaph

jetsonx wrote:

Infuriating - another short-term solution from the West ?

so here we go again - another hand-out from the West - another short-term
solution that helps ease the pangs of guilt.

ok, I agree its better than nothing...but the unfair trade structures are still
there....Europe still has the CAP which prevents third world famers selling their produce on european markets and the States have similar barriers to trade in place....would it not be a better idea for Geldof and Bono (their attempts are extremely laudable don't get me wrong) to campaign to get red of the trade barriers first ? (indigenous corruption of african leaders aside)

I for one can still see a reason for the CAP and I have no farming background. If we abandon CAP and throw open the EU to food imports from anywhere prices will fall. Farmers will not be able to compete in many areas (as already evidenced with South American corned beef etc. and that's WITH tarrifs) and they will cease food production across vast areas of Europe. We europeans will then be heavily dependant on the third world for our food :eek: . I personally don't feel comfortable with this as things stand. It's not like cheap socks. It's food. As you state correctly, the CAP is here so long as the ameericans have their subsidies and vice versa.

jetsonx

being the devils advocate here....many of the "liberals" might argue that saying you don't want your food from the third world is an imperialistic "we are superior" atitude?

murphaph

jetsonx wrote:

being the devils advocate here....many of the "liberals" might argue that saying you don't want your food from the third world is an imperialistic "we are superior" atitude?

I'm sure much of their food is fine and would have to pass EU regs anyway to be sold here. We've probably had more food scares in Europe and the US with all the chemicals we use (esp. growth hormones in the US) than many third world countries. I'd be genuinely concerned about a serious decline in agriculture in Europe for reasons already stated.

Goodshape

I would classify myself as one of these "liberals" but personally I wouldn't like my food to come from half way across the globe - be it a third, or first, world source.

murphaph's point seems pretty valid actually (although I honestly don't pay enough attention to these things to know the ins-and-outs), it is prehaps important to create a more level playing field before allowing free trade.

gom

Fair Trade is abolishing the CAP. Free Trade is accepting the consequences of an open market in food products from all over the world. Are we prepared to do this?

I for one am definitly a card-carrying neo-Social_dem-Liberial. The CAP has to go as a production subside. Maybe remain as a rural development grant but entirely decupiled. There are many complex issues when it comes to Food markets. Its not simply economics. Food production, supply and quality are all issues of security in the long run. Europe and the US has not had to worry about the issue of food supply since the mid 20th century with the arrival of fully industrialised food production.

Today, the 3rd world is alot more productive than it used to be and many times relatively cheaper than before. The western world is faced with a situation that is new and globalised. If Agri-Sibsides and good quality standards were abolished it would be cheaper to buy food that was produced the other side of the world and shipped here than buy from a local producer(organic or otherwise).
While I feel that the we(the EU and US) need to give the least developed and developing countries a better deal, conditions should be attached.

1. Good Quality Food
Food standards should be maintained or increased. The food that is imported into the EU and food from domestic EU producers should be fully labelled and have all the details of production(GM, Cloning, Chemical, Hormone Treatment, Place of Origin, Manufacturer, feed used etc etc). The EU should be allowed and expected to reject any food stuffs that do not meet regerus food safety standards. The US should not be allowed to claim unfair trade practices to the WTO, when in fact the EU is simply protecting the general health and environment of its citizens.

2. Food Security
The Defence industry isn't in the free market as it is considered too important to worry about the market system and states like to know that they own or control their armament suppliers. The food industry is also vitally important. While it is important that free-trade is promoted and OECD markets are opened to the 3rd world we must also find a way to balance this with Food security. A simply mechanism would be a small(but viable) percentage of food is produced in the EU market. The EU could set a limit on the amount of food that is to be produced. It would not be viable for the market but would act as an emergency producer of vital crops or food stuffs in the event of a collapse in global trade due to war or unforseen circumstances.

During the period of peace the food would be sold at the market rate(as established by non-subsided producers). The EU would then subsides the emergency producer for the loss made by selling at the market rate. To avoid intrenched inefficency, competition for a 2 year contract to be the provider of various emergency stocks can be bidded for. Contracts could be lost for complacent producers.

The emergency stock would be supplemented by the promotion of a mixed basket of food importors from nearand far. A dynamic programme to secure the supply of food is required to meet the changes of the food economy(the single largest market in the world and Ireland's most important contribution to GDP)

3. Promotion of Industrialisation
The OECD countries need to promote the movement away from agricultural export economies to a more long-term economically sustainible mechanism. Countries that rely on raw food stuffs for export led growth in the long-run suffer from the disproportionite growth of more value-added products from industry vs the raw food stuffs. If we do not promote the economic development of the 3rd world once free-trade is a reality for food markets. They will relapse back into a poverty trap that will be even harder to leave as the subsides will already have disappeared.

4. Carbon Taxation
EU firms will soon face the full consequences of the negative externalities of their production practices. Carbon taxes will result in more sustainible practices becoming common place. Firms fromt he 3rd world or outside the EU will not face the Carbon tax ragime. If they are signed up to the Kyoto protocol they may have a significant leeway on CO2 immissions as 3rd world producers. Any exporter to the EU should face the EU Carbon Tax for the process of the exporting(i.e. shipping, transport and handling). THis would mean that the firm would face some of the Carbon tax for the exporting section of the produciton process and would pay carbon duties(or not as the case may be) for the remainder of the production process in their country of origin.
This would be fair and avoid double taxation. It would also result in exporters and domestic producers being put on an equal footing. The Environment would also benefit and any overly environmentally damaging export practices (e.g. spuds from latin america) may be uneconomic.

Quantum

jetsonx wrote:

Infuriating - another short-term solution from the West ?

so here we go again - another hand-out from the West - another short-term
solution that helps ease the pangs of guilt.

ok, I agree its better than nothing...but the unfair trade structures are still
there....Europe still has the CAP which prevents third world famers selling their produce on european markets and the States have similar barriers to trade in place....would it not be a better idea for Geldof and Bono (their attempts are extremely laudable don't get me wrong) to campaign to get red of the trade barriers first ? (indigenous corruption of african leaders aside)

Africa doesn't need 100% access to the EU. It has a whole continent to trade with if it is given half a chance and if they stop destroying local trade with aid.

Europe must maintain a food production capability - not just for jobs and economics - but for our security and independence. If we allow a situation to develop where a significant proportion of our food to be grown outside the EU then we will seriously damage our independence in the world and weaken our standing in all kinds of political and economic ways.
Our dependence on oil is a major weakness that makes us dependent on oil producing nations, and limits our ability to tackle major issies like drugs and international terrorism - if we follow that with food, then Europe will enter a new era of dependence and vulnerability. Then we will be at the mercy of not just oil producing but food producing regions of the world.

bonkey

Quantum wrote:

Africa doesn't need 100% access to the EU.

quantum wrote:

Yet no one has mentioned protectionism except to object to it - correctly.

(taken from here, posted only 48 hours ago.)

So, China should be given access, but not Africa?

jc

Meh

Quantum wrote:

If we allow a situation to develop where a significant proportion of our food to be grown outside the EU then we will seriously damage our independence in the world and weaken our standing in all kinds of political and economic ways.

How does paying farmers to not grow crops, to reforest their land, and to retire early (all of which the CAP does) increase our food security? You may have a point in your argument, but I still don't see why you're in favour of the CAP.

Then we will be at the mercy of not just oil producing but food producing regions of the world.

The difference being that it's quite easy to go back to growing your own food if you need to (farming isn't exactly rocket science). You can't start growing your own oil if your main supplier refuses to supply you.

murphaph

bonkey wrote:

(taken from here, posted only 48 hours ago.)

So, China should be given access, but not Africa?

jc

This is about food though. It cannot be treated like nuts and bolts or cheap socks. It's perhaps the most important issue facing the world and I personally am not comfortable with the idea of a high level of dependence on third world countries for our food supplies. Europe simply has to maintain the ability to feed it's people and I can't see that happening if vastly cheaper food from outside the EU is freely available.

murphaph

Meh wrote:

How does paying farmers to not grow crops, to reforest their land, and to retire early (all of which the CAP does) increase our food security? You may have a point in your argument, but I still don't see why you're in favour of the CAP.

Because it keeps farmers who would otherwise leave farming in farming, thus keeping the knowledge and ability to feed ourselves alive. Remember the CAP was borne out of the massive food shortages following the war. The reasons are still valid, although the methods of implementation of the CAP leave a lot to be desired.

Meh wrote:

The difference being that it's quite easy to go back to growing your own food if you need to (farming isn't exactly rocket science). You can't start growing your own oil if your main supplier refuses to supply you.

Eh, I wouldn't know where to begin producing my own food. I dare say modern agriculture is a bit more complex than that. Maybe that wasn't your main point though.

Meh

murphaph wrote:

Because it keeps farmers who would otherwise leave farming in farming, thus keeping the knowledge and ability to feed ourselves alive.

...by paying them to retire and reforest their land. I don't think you've thought the consequences of the CAP fully through.

Eh, I wouldn't know where to begin producing my own food. I dare say modern agriculture is a bit more complex than that.

Yes, you'll need to have your PhD in theoretical agriculture before you can milk cows, spread slurry and dig potatoes. Farming is one of the less intellectually demanding professions around. The most complicated part is filling in the forms for the EU handouts.

Meh

Meh wrote:

...by paying them to retire and reforest their land.

The retirement is only on condition that a young qualified farmer actively takes over the farm ergo the early retirement scheme encourages more effecient younger farmers.

Yes, you'll need to have your PhD in theoretical agriculture before you can milk cows, spread slurry and dig potatoes. Farming is one of the less intellectually demanding professions around. The most complicated part is filling in the forms for the EU handouts.

With respect thats the most ill informed garbage I've ever had to read on this board.I am a farmer and if you wish I can go for the next several pages with you to debunk that nonsense.

bonkey

Without CAP, would it not be a case that there would be far fewer farmers (on much larger farms) in Europe, not that the ability to farm would die out?

The most typical excuse I've heard for the retention of CAP is that it is supporting a way of life - a cultural heritage, if you will, that we are loathe to dispense with, rather than that we are protecting a much-needed human resource skill that would cease to exist inside the EU. Is this incorrect?

jc

bonkey

bonkey wrote:

Without CAP, would it not be a case that there would be far fewer farmers (on much larger farms) in Europe, not that the ability to farm would die out?

Probably.The difficulty with the present trend in encouraging large scale lack of use of land is the cost and effort(and expertise) required in getting it back into production and the timescale involved.Unlooked after land loses its productivity rather quickly and it can take a number of years and a lot of investment to get it back.
The direction the CAP is going right now varies across Europe.Ireland has decoupled subsidy payments from production alltogether and indeed has made them tradeable,other countries have not.
The thinking behind that is to make unused land available cheaper to farmers who want to grow in size and take advantage of Scale.

The most typical excuse I've heard for the retention of CAP is that it is supporting a way of life - a cultural heritage, if you will, that we are loathe to dispense with, rather than that we are protecting a much-needed human resource skill that would cease to exist inside the EU. Is this incorrect?

There is a lot to that, but believe it or not it's allied to the fact that there are young people willing to do the hard work thats involved provided theres a livelyhood in it for them.
Currently one large supermarket in Ireland takes 60% of the milk from the largest Dairy company in the country.They also have more than double the margin than the producer who is in a price cost squeeze.Believe it or not despite the Cap dairy farmers are receiving the same price for their milk as they were back in 1980.I dont have to tell you where the cost of production has gone in the meantime.This has been partly offset by effeciencies and new production methods.Labour though has become for many an impossible luxury.
The same dairy company has already absorbed all of the recent milk price subsidy introduced by the E.U(by lowering the price paid to the farmer who by the way isn't paid that subsidy for the first time untill next Xmas), yet it has increased its own profits markedly at the same time.
In other words in this case the CAP reform has benefited a large company and not the producer for which it was ammended in the first place. Part of that problem has its genesis ten years ago when the then much older Co-op members took a financial inducement to persuade them all to turn their co-op into a big plc.The currently younger farmer population base is paying the price for losing that control over who to and how they sell their produce.
It's little wonder that they have been agitating for schemes that encourage younger people into farming.

Those farmers could strike but the problem is, the cow would still have to be milked, the costs would have to be paid, the borrowings serviced and the milk disposed of.In other words they can't.
I could go on for pages on how terrible the Cap is/was in the form that it had for years but I wont bore ye Theres a typical article from a farmer commentator here (that site just needs you to register with an email address,its free)

Memnoch

I've come to realise that the majority of discussions on such issues seem to resolve around the ever unanswered questions of the have's and the have not's, and the instinct of self-preservation that governs all human behaviour.

The have's seem to go to great and terrible lenghts to keep the have not's in their place.

Such is the order of our world.

On one hand the right wing movement wants to champion capitalism and free trade, yet on the same side they want to protect themselves from the repurcussions of true competition.

They've had their cake a while, and now they are eating it. Made in the west it was too.

Quantum

bonkey wrote:

So, China should be given access, but not Africa?

Firstly I say that Africa should get reasonable access to EU markets the same as China, but not unlimited access.
Secondly what I am saying about Africa is that I don't believe it's ability to trade out of it's difficulties depends on 100% access to EU markets.
Thirdly I believe that individuals should decided themselves to suport their home products.
Fourthly at the time of my reply above no one had suggested any protectionism to the best of my knowledge, though the truth is I do believe that there are always going to be times when specific industries need legitimate protection. I have never professed a belief in 10% open trade, to the best of my knowledge.

Is there a problem with those opinons other than your disagreement with them ?

Quantum

bonkey wrote:

Without CAP, would it not be a case that there would be far fewer farmers (on much larger farms) in Europe, not that the ability to farm would die out?

That assumes that farms could be consolidated in Europe to sufficient size to compete on price with those in 3rd world countries. It's an interesting question. I doubt it, considering the structure of society and of the land itself across much of Europe.

The most typical excuse I've heard for the retention of CAP is that it is supporting a way of life - a cultural heritage, if you will, that we are loathe to dispense with, rather than that we are protecting a much-needed human resource skill that would cease to exist inside the EU. Is this incorrect?

I would agree that this is the argument I hear most often. Personally I don't care that much about the way of life. All kinds of ways of life come and go through time and I am sure we can keep one or two example farms going as a museum.
I believe that the importance of food as a resource is far more important in the long term. It's natural that few people feel this is so important considering how short term most people are about such things. The appeal of preserving real people's way of life is more immediate and more engaging. However it is politicians jobs ot be looking into the future and looking at issues such as security and long term planning.

murphaph

I do not like the idea of the CAP paying for a way of life or any such nonsense. I only support it's continued existance so long as it ensures europe's continuing ability to feed itself.

CaptainPeacock

Maybe if we imported cheaply the kind of food the third world countries can grow then farmers and growers here could get back to growing vegetables and stuff so we can stop importing them from elsewhere in the EU. The carrots I bought today were from facking Holland! As it stands they'll only grow stuff they get subsidies for, rather than growing the crops we need here in Ireland, which is a cnunting disgrace.

bonkey

murphaph wrote:

I only support it's continued existance so long as it ensures europe's continuing ability to feed itself.

Ah yes...good ol' protectionism - ensuring that we protect our industries from foreign competition that might otherwise put them out of business.

As a matter of interest - do you also support other nations putting trade-barriers to block EU agricultural exports, in order to protect their own ability to feed themselves?

And is it only food? What about, say, steel-production? Or any form of raw-material / base-material processing? Are they not as equally important to our long-term ability to be self-sufficient. And if not for us, do other nations have the right to decide that (say) steel-production is as important to their long-term stability/security/independance as we see food in ours?

This whole issue is one which makes me convinced that the concepts of open-market globalisation are really only a smokescreen. The developed nations don't want open markets. They only want open markets in the markets they can dominate, which would seem to be simply a polite way of saying that we don't support protectionism but only where we don't need it.

Quantum

CaptainPeacock wrote:

Maybe if we imported cheaply the kind of food the third world countries can grow then farmers and growers here could get back to growing vegetables and stuff so we can stop importing them from elsewhere in the EU. The carrots I bought today were from facking Holland! As it stands they'll only grow stuff they get subsidies for, rather than growing the crops we need here in Ireland, which is a cnunting disgrace.

I'm not sure I follow you there....

There is no such thing as 100% open markets and there never will be - just as there is no such thing as 100% freedom, or 100% safety. And the first priority or any government of any country in the world should be to protect the security of it's people. Any government that does not do that should be ousted immediately. Globalisation is the opening up of markets to trade with each other free of tarrifs to the greatest extent possible. No one ever suggested that every country should open themselves and every sector of their country 100%, and anyone who thought this was ever going to be practicable is extremely naive.
Africa will need to protect it's own specific sectors from being reduced beyond a minimum level, and the EU and US has to do the same. This is not protectionism, but the protection of key sectors that directly influence the very security of a nation.

If Europe lost all of it's farmers and farms and it's ability to produce food, then it would lose all sense of independence in the world. The sources of our food could blackmail us and control us on a whim. It would be insane and suicidal. However this is not a justification for the CAP which must be abolished. But it is a justification for the minimum amount of protection that is possible to maintain an acceptable level of production.

Similarly with the EU and US's ability to protect itself with armaments, else our ability to stay independent would be at the whim of arms manufacturers in other countrys.

To suggest that this protection of key sectors critical to the security of nations is protectionism and that it therefore implies some megalomaniacal motivation to dominate or exploit other countries is to miss the very essence of being independent, of sovereignty, of continued existence.

Hydroquinone

Goodshape wrote:

I would classify myself as one of these "liberals" but personally I wouldn't like my food to come from half way across the globe - be it a third, or first, world source.

Well, if you eat bananas or chocolate or oranges or any sort of spice or if you drink tea or coffee or coke; where do you think they come from?

I'd imagine Goodshape means staple diet foodstuffs like meat and poultry, domestic root vegatables and those types of things.
They're entirely traceable back to their producer in Ireland with stringent rules as to how they are produced.
Thats not true of South America or the far East.

red-rover

there is much talk in Green circles about sustainable alternatives to the CAP. i would love to see local food production being encouraged across the globe. only when the basic need of the community are met should the idea of trade eneter anyones mind. i take the point that trade is trade 100% but food is not some abstract political tool, it is the baisc fundamental to our existence. promoting fair and equal farming is a good start.
Cap fails to do this. CAP is needed but reform of it is essential. there is a very sustainable argument for subsidising and promoting farming for local consumption.
Red Rover...the blog

murphaph

red-rover wrote:

promoting fair and equal farming is a good start.
Cap fails to do this. CAP is needed but reform of it is essential. there is a very sustainable argument for subsidising and promoting farming for local consumption.

Exactly. The CAP has become bloated and needs reform badly, but that doesn't mean it should be abolished as some are calling for.

liver bird

the agricultural policy is a disgrace , how cany one can justify a situation which leaves left over produce from europe being shifted over in africa (after we have fed ourselves) and sold at a ridiculously cheap price as a direct result of the CAP and its subsidization that even the african farmers can't compete in their own countries thereby leaving them impoverished ,its a scandel and its about time we woke up to the results of the CAP.

its okay for us to flood their markets with cheap subisized food but we protect our own markets so they can't do the same ,fair trade and not aid is what the africans want not bob geldof popping up from time to time.