Uganda: Cattle 'Birth Certificate' To Aid In Export Beef Traceability Requitrements

The Ugandan government has announced plans to register all farmers and their cattle, including issuing "birth certificates" for the animals, so it can trace their products.

Mr Vincent Ssempijja, the Minister for Agriculture, Animal Industry and Fisheries said the international market demands that all countries producing food for the European market should have proof of its traceability.

"They want to know where the [meat and crop] products are coming from. They have been impounding and banning all consignments from Uganda if they find one box with issues,” he said.

“Farmers will be registered and their products given barcodes so that if they find a problem with one box, they look for the source and sort out the problem. We cannot enter lucrative markets unless farmers register."

Mr. Ssempijja added that all the cattle must be registered and given "birth certificates."

"For cattle farmers, it is going to be worse. You will be registered as a farmer, the cow will be registered, numbered and will have a birth certificate because the importers of our products demand meat for cows aged between 15 to 24 months. So we are going to sell [the meat] depending on their age," he added.

According to Mr Ssempijja, an audit team from the European Union is expected in Uganda in September (2019) to ensure that all farmers producing commodities destined for Europe are registered.

"Apart from traceability of the products, the team also wants to ensure that farmers benefit directly because many of them are cheated by middlemen. Government will not cater for those who defy the order when it comes to markets,” he announced, refuting allegations that the registration is aimed at imposing a tax on them.

President Yoweri Museveni, in a message delivered by Prime Minister Ruhakana Rugunda, said Ugandans need to be more competitive in so they can benefit from the international market.

"People want to know what they are buying to eat, where it is coming from, its quality and what they are spending their money on. Registering farmers is a major requirement; we cannot do without it and if we ignore it, we will lose to competition in the international market," he said.

The Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) representative in Uganda, Mr Antonio Querido, said Uganda needs livestock traceability for better product transaction in the international market.

Full article...

Squeezed Tunisian Farmers Eye EU Imports With Concern

Sitting in the restaurant of his farm in the lush Beja agricultural region, Zied Ben Yousef praises Tunisia’s farming potential, which he says goes all the way back to the days of the Roman Empire. His farm specialises in the production of cheese, which he sells in a local shop and delivers to the capital. He also teaches students about cheese production methods and agriculture. His goal is for people to come to the region, located two hours from Tunis, and enjoy his homemade products.

But the competition from Europe and other domestic producers is fierce. It’s impossible, he says, to export to the European Union because of health standards and the Tunisian market is increasingly dominated by big multinationals, leaving small farmers under pressure.

“We are in the last days of agriculture in Tunisia,” he says.

Ben Yousef is not alone: many Tunisian farmers are squeezed these days between a sector with little government investment, slowly being taken over by large producers and landowners, and a marketplace that benefits subsidised imports from elsewhere.

Full article...

Morocco, EU trade deal will reduce tariffs on agricultural products

A new deal between Morocco and the European Union will make trade in a variety of agricultural and food products between the two duty-free.

In the next ten years, 70 percent of EU agricultural exports will be allowed duty-free entry into Morocco. Wheat is one of the commodities named in Press reports as an exception to which Morocco will be allowed to impose approved import duties.

The agreement also involves the immediate lifting of present EU duties on 55% of goods imported from Morocco.

Some ‘sensitive products’ will still have limits on their amounts that can enter the EU market, to protect European producers and prevent flooding the market. Among them are cucumbers, garlic, tomatoes and strawberries. Unprocessed fruits and vegetables make up 80% of Moroccan exports into the EU.

The deal has its critics. Western Sahara, a province of Morocco, seeking to break away, is included in the deal, which some say will make find a solution to the long-running, sometimes violent conflict more difficult. Some large scale local and foreign agribusiness concerns operate there despite the objections of some of the region’s residents. Other fears are the potentially harmful effects of the partial free trade deal on small scale farmers in both the EU and in Morocco.

African Agriculture

US, don't follow European lead on GM crops

Don't go all European about modified food

by Dick Taverne

For over a decade, genetically modified crops have been one of the test issues for evidence-based policy. On the whole the US, unlike Europe, has been a haven of good sense. It has based policy on scientific evidence and has led the way in the development and cultivation of GM crops.

This is in stark contrast to most European countries, where such crops are banned or severely restricted and are regularly trashed by green vandals even when grown for research. But there are worrying signs that US policy is about to change.

Outside Europe, GM has been applied more rapidly and extensively than any other new technology in the history of farming. In 1996 GM crops covered some 1.7 million hectares worldwide. By 2009 the figure was 134 million hectares, much of it in the developing world. Various crops that will help reduce disease and hunger are nearing commercial cultivation, from golden rice that can prevent children going blind to crops that may help farmers in Africa cope with drought and avoid losses from pests and diseases.

GM cultivation has been most intensive in the US. Nearly all soya, cotton and corn in the country is now genetically modified, benefitting consumers, farmers and the environment. Herbicide-tolerant and pest-resistant crops have reduced the use of herbicides and pesticides, promoted no-till farming – so reducing soil erosion and carbon dioxide emissions – and have increased yields.

However, a coalition of anti-GM activists and a small but growing number of organic farmers are now making their influence felt in the US. In 2005, after field trials lasting eight years, the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) approved the cultivation of GM herbicide-tolerant alfalfa. The decision was challenged by activists, but after a lengthy review the USDA concluded that GM alfalfa should cause no concern for regulators, farmers or consumers. Nevertheless, under pressure from this coalition, the department is now considering strict rules on where the crops may be planted, to prevent "contamination" by GM seeds blown into fields of conventionally or organically grown alfalfa. A decision is expected this week.

The signs are not good. At a recent congressional hearing, secretary for agriculture Tom Vilsack expressed his support for science-based policy and biotechnology, but ominously added that he supported the cultivation of organic products and would seek "co-existence" between GM and organic farmers. That implies restrictions on GM alfalfa to prevent contamination of organic fields. Farmers and companies that use and sell GM seeds and invest in research reasonably fear that if restrictions are imposed on GM alfalfa, limits on other GM crops will follow, and US policy will begin to converge with that of Europe.

Opposition to GM by green and organic lobbies is one of the main reasons why so many European Union countries ban or restrict their cultivation. It is a movement against science. The world's leading science academies have all concluded that, after 15 years of cultivation and consumption by millions of people, there is no evidence that GM crops harm human health or the environment.

By contrast the organic movement is based on the scientific fallacy that natural chemicals are good and synthetic chemicals bad. It ignores evidence and has consistently failed to substantiate any of its own claims. A meticulous review sponsored by the UK's Food Standards Agency recently found no evidence that organic food is more nutritious than conventionally grown food (The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, vol 90, p 680).

Meanwhile, irrational rules deem that crops containing traces of genes from GM crops via cross-pollination cannot be certified as organic. These rules can be, and have been, invoked to stop the cultivation of GM crops.

As for claims that organic farming is better for the environment, yields from organic farms are generally 20 to 50 per cent lower than those from conventional farms. Organic farming makes less efficient use of land while the world desperately needs the exact opposite.

Encouraged by the European Commission, which has confirmed scientific support for GM crops, attitudes in some EU countries are changing. In the UK more friendly noises issue from the agricultural ministry, and the government's chief scientist, John Beddington, has stated that GM crops have a vital part to play in feeding the world. Meanwhile sales of organic food have declined. But if the US changes tack, green objectors will appear vindicated. Their influence in Europe will be enhanced and the consequences will be far-reaching. It will be a triumph for unreason.

* Dick Taverne is founder and chair of Sense About Science, an independent charitable trust based in London that promotes the evidence-based approach to the public discussion of scientific issues. He is a member of the House of Lords and was a government minister from 1966 to 1970.

New Scientist

EU lawmakers OK banana duty cuts for Latin America

by Juliane von Reppert-Bismarck and Charlie Dunmore

European Union lawmakers have approved a deal to cut EU import tariffs on bananas from Latin America, ending the world's longest-running trade row, a European Parliament official said.

A majority in the European Parliament voted to cut duties on Latin American bananas by 35 percent over six years, potentially improving the competitive edge of producers such as Chiquita and Dole over smaller growers in Africa, the Caribbean, Pacific and the European Union.

"This agreement is already being implemented provisionally and now needs final approval from the members of the World Trade Organization," the parliamentary spokeswoman said.

Once rubber-stamped by the WTO later this year, the deal will mark a victory by the world's largest banana producers in a near 20-year battle for cheap access to the EU, the world's largest consumer of the fruit.

It is expected to persuade the United States and 11 Latin American countries, led by Ecuador, to drop a legal challenge accusing Europe of imposing illegally high tariffs to protect banana producers in its Caribbean territories and the Canary Islands, as well as in former colonies of member states.

The deal will cut duties on imports from Latin America to 114 euros ($158) per tonne in 2017, from 176 euros at present.

The EU banana import regime, dating from 1993, had given duty-free access to mostly small producers in former colonies and imposed tariffs on Latin American bananas, most of which are produced by the large U.S. multinationals.

Latin American countries planning free trade agreements with the EU -- such as Peru and Colombia -- have already secured duty cuts to about 75 euros, so Thursday's deal will largely benefit Ecuador, which in 2009 refused a trade pact with Europe.

African, Caribbean and Pacific producers, who oppose the cuts, will retain their duty-free access to EU markets.

Separately, the EU will now decide on an aid package worth up to 200 million euros to support fledgling banana production in Ivory Coast, Cameroon, the Dominican Republic and Suriname. Lawmakers will also debate aid for European producers.

"The future for small banana producers and sustainable production is now even more uncertain," said Catherine Greze, a Green Party EU lawmaker who voted against the motion. She said funds for encouraging banana production could reduce the EU's available budget for other development projects.

The EU imported about 4.8 million tonnes of bananas in 2008 worth a total of some 2.9 billion euros, according to European Commission data.

.Reuters

EU organic food push hailed by African farmers

by James Melik

The European Union (EU) is co-funding a $2.8m (£1.8m) publicity campaign to convince UK residents that organic food is good.

According to the industry body, the Organic Trade Board (OTB), the aim is to democratise organic foods and make people aware of their benefits. In other words, the OTB wants people to buy more organic produce. The board will be running advertising campaigns for nine months of the year over the next three years, entitled: Why I Love Organic.

They want to put across the message that there is nothing elitist about organic foods and to highlight what they consider to be the advantages, both to a person's health and to the environment. This is good news for organic farmers, whose trade has been diminishing as shoppers continue to tighten their belts and look upon organics as a luxury they can no longer afford.

"I won't buy it because it is more expensive. I think it's a good idea but it's the price which puts me off," says one shopper at a market stall in North London.

Another decrees that she will buy it at a comparable price, but not otherwise, while a woman who recently had a baby says: "I am trying to save a bit of money on food shopping each week, so I would only treat organic food like a luxury product."

For organic producers in developing countries, the drop-off in trade in recent years has been a bitter blow.

Anthony Pile of Blue Skies, which imports pre-packaged fruit into Europe, has had to close down his Brazilian operation and lay off 150 workers in South Africa and a further 200 in Ghana. He says that it is his farmers in Ghana who have been the hardest hit.

"We have had quite a difficult time with organics, because when the business started some 12 or 13 years ago, we worked closely with farmers in a rather poor area in the central region of Ghana and they had virtually nothing else," he says. "They were delighted when we were able to market their sugarloaf pineapple in Europe."

There was a gradual rise in output over the dozen years up to 2009, but it then started to drop very sharply from about 23 tonnes a week to a couple of tonnes at the end of 2010.

"These are smallholders who have hitherto depended upon their folk selling pineapples beside the road," Mr Pile explains. "Now of course, they have got used to the idea of building proper homes and putting in sanitation," he says. "One of two of the villages have got electricity and they have started to improve schooling for their children. We were the sole income and that has come now to a grinding halt," he laments.

He views the new initiative by the EU as a positive step towards helping the market grow once more and thus alleviating the hard times that his farmers are currently experiencing.

In the UK, organic sales dropped 13% per cent in 2009 and have been making only a slow recovery since then. The OTB is unhappy that the organic sector is not getting more help from the UK government.

"In most other countries, their funding was supplied by central governments or levy bodies, whereas we didn't get that support in the UK and we have had to rely on voluntary contributions from those within the trade," says Huw Bowles of the OTB. "We find that in a number of European countries, there are public procurement policies in place that specify certain proportions of organic foods, which is not the case in the UK."

He believes that is why organic sales in the UK have fallen, whereas most European countries and many countries across the world are seeing continued growth.

"In America, for example, which has far worse economic conditions than us, it could be argued, there has been continuing growth over the last couple of years."

Not everybody thinks that such EU funding is money well spent.

"It is somewhat ironical that the EU is blowing million of pounds of taxpayers' money on this campaign, given that Brussels is in the process of forcing through the Food Supplements Directive that will severely restrict the availability of hundreds of essential minerals and herbal remedies," says Marc Glendening of the UK-based Democracy Movement.

Mr Glendening objects to the EU's decision to allow the cultivation of genetically modified crops. In March 2010, it approved the growing of the Amflora potato, produced by BASF of Germany.

He accuses the EU of encouraging the extensive use of pesticides through the Common Agricultural Policy. He also points out that until 2008, it enforced marketing standards that prevented oddly-sized or misshapen fruit and vegetables being sold in Europe.

"The funding of this patronising 'eat organic' campaign is probably a cynical attempt to give the EU a veneer of being green-friendly," Mr Glendening asserts, "when in reality everybody knows big pharmaceutical companies and agri-business determine policy-making behind closed doors in Brussels."

Why should anyone spend their hard-earned cash on organic foods? There is no hard scientific evidence that it is any better for our health than ordinary fruit and veg or meat and milk.

It is not an argument that sways Marion Nestle, professor of nutrition, food studies and public health at New York University.

"There is no question that people who have habitually consumed organic foods have lower levels of pesticides in their blood," she says. "If those pesticides are harmful, then they are going to have a lower risk of whatever harm those pesticides might cause," she maintains.

One problem is that there has never been any incontrovertible data on the effects of pesticides, mainly because such studies are so difficult to conduct.

"There is no reason to think that pesticides are good for people's health, but there may be plenty of reasons to think that they are not so good - so in that sense, having lower levels of pesticides seems like a really good idea," she says.

Surveys suggest that organics are losing ground to "fair trade" products, as ethical shoppers make difficult choices on how best to spend their money.

"With all our suppliers, we agree a price which is fair and exceeds the sustainable cost of production and a time scale with which everyone is happy to be paid within," says Anthony Pile of Blue Skies.

The agreements are reviewed with the supplier on an annual basis or as inflation dictates.

"While we aim to ensure that all our products are traded fairly, we also support established schemes like 'Fairtrade' and 'Ethical Trade Organic', which help to give producers in the developing world a better deal," he asserts.

The EU's intervention has been welcomed in many quarters, but many consumers these days feel that charity begins at home, since there is rather less of their own money to go round.

Paying a premium for organic produce might not be an option they can all afford.

BBC

ACP banana producers feel “betrayed” by EU

Representatives of the African, Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) countries were lobbying for greater assistance for their banana exports to Europe to compensate for the EU’s improving trade relations with Latin America at the European Parliament and Commission in Brussels, on 29 April.

Cameroon’s Trade Minister Luc Magloire Mbarga Atangana, representing the ACP, said he would challenge MEPs and the Commission to go further than the €190 million package proposed by the European Commission, on 17 March, to help banana producing ACP countries adapt to the new trade regime since it resolved its trade dispute with Latin America and the United States, resulting in cuts to import tariffs on Latin American bananas. The minister argued that even with the ‘banana accompanying measures,’ ACP countries had been “betrayed” by the EU.

“We don’t want indefinite support,” he said. “We are asking for accompanying measures to be able to participate in a globalised world, we are asking to be partners,” he added. “Isn’t Europe actually turning its back on our countries?” he challenged. “Isn’t there a kind of falling out of love – I don’t want to talk about divorce – but a kind of falling out of love with Africa?” he asked.

The minister said he felt that globalisation had been vaunted as a great hope for small or developing nations, but had only benefitted the major new players. He said the attitude of large trading powers, such as the EU or the US, was tokenistic. “They say we are going to accept several at the table, the emerging ones, China, India, Brazil, and then consider everyone is represented,” he said.

The Cameroonian minister called for development considerations to be taken into account more. He called the banana industry the “social cement” of ACP countries, many of which are struggling to emerge from economic and political turmoil, providing sources of employment, which feed into social stability.

The Commissioner for Development, Andris Piebalgs, recently said the EU was indeed determined to support these countries’ development through trade. “The Commission has committed itself to fully stand by ACP countries to foster their efficient integration into the world economy while respecting international trade rules,” Piebalgs said.

At the 19th Joint ACP-EU Parliamentary Assembly, held in Tenerife (Spain), parliamentarians asked the European Commission to increase aid to ACP and EU banana producers in order to help them adapt to the new regime and receive compensation for financial losses they might face because of new tariff rules laid down by the EU-Latin America ‘banana agreement’. The one-off programme will apply to the ten main ACP banana exporting countries and aims to help make each nation’s banana market more competitive, diversify its economy outside of bananas or assist with the potential social or environmental impact of the new trade environment.

Freshplaza

Europe still says 'no' to GM crops, with effects on acceptance in Africa

by Philip Brasher

When it comes to genetically modified crops, most of Africa is off limits. Many Africans and U.S. experts blame Europe.

European countries are both a major destination for African agricultural exports and also a major contributor of aid on the continent.

"Africa is very reluctant to approve and adopt (biotech crops) because they are afraid some of their specialized exports to the European Union would be jeopardized," said GianCarlo Moschini, a trade economist at Iowa State University.

The U.S. government has long been seeking to change European minds about biotech food or else isolate Europe from the rest of the world on the issue.

Doing the former has proven all but impossible. But Europe could find itself more isolated if African governments decide they want biotech crops badly enough to drop their own barriers to the technology.

Monsanto Co. hopes to commercialize a drought-tolerant variety of corn in Africa. Pioneer is on a similar track with a biotech corn that needs less fertilizer because it uses nitrogen more efficiently. Both companies are contributing genetic material and high-tech breeding expertise to African projects funded by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.

"If Africa decides to go their own way, I don't think it's going to make any difference on how Europe looks at it. They are taking their own sweet time doing that," Moschini said.

DuPont CEO Ellen Kullman says it's too soon to tell whether Europeans will change their views about biotechnology based on what happens in Africa.

"Maybe over time it will be things like drought tolerance and nitrogen efficiency that will have enough interest (to Europeans) to allow them to start to understand it in a different way," she said in an interview.

The European Union actually is a major consumer of biotech crops - but primarily of herbicide-resistant soybeans, much of which are imported from South America and used primarily in animal feed, not human food.

European food retailers don't want biotech ingredients because of resistance from consumers and fear of blacklisting by anti-biotech groups, according to U.S. Agriculture Department reports.

EU countries import no U.S. corn, as it may contain unapproved biotech varieties. The EU has approved one biotech crop trait for commercial production there - a version of insect-resistant corn developed by Monsanto Co., but little of the crop is grown.

The European food safety agency concluded that the corn was as safe as conventional grain, but planting bans imposed by individual EU member countries have limited production.

A report issued in January by USDA officials in Rome argued that European consumer resistance to biotechnology isn't really that strong. They recommended targeting education campaigns first to consumers in Italy, one of the countries most positive about agricultural biotechnology, according to surveys.

"Most Europeans have heard of biotechnology, but they are not activists and their opinions are not very strong," the report said.

Just six of 27 European Union countries grew any biotech corn at all last year, and most of that was planted in Spain and totaled just 187,000 acres, according to an annual survey by the International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-Biotech Applications. Germany banned the crop after 2008.

Des Moines Register

Even amidst economic crisis, EU subsidies roll on

by Vivienne Walt

Greece seemed to be a deserving recipient of the E.U.'s $1 trillion Europe-wide bailout package announced on May 10. After all, the country's dire straits threatened to cause global economic havoc.

But how about two dead Swedes, an ice-skating club in the Netherlands and a billiards club in Denmark? All of those received money from Brussels last year under the E.U.'s mammoth agricultural subsidy system, according to data released by E.U. governments.

With the ink barely dry on the rescue plan for Europe's troubled economies, details have begun filtering out over the Internet about the $70 billion in agricultural subsidies that E.U. officials doled out last year, much as they do every year as part of Europe's Common Agricultural Policy.

Under E.U. rules, the 27 governments are required to disclose details of the subsidies by April 30 each year, outlining how the money was distributed the year before. Since 2008, a Brussels NGO called FarmSubsidy.org has been analyzing the figures to discover how the money — which comprises about 40% of the E.U.'s budget — is spent.

The list of recipients, published May 4, contains some eye-popping revelations. One of the biggest subsidies was $223 million, given to the French sugar conglomerate Tereos, one of whose subsidiaries produces rum on France's Indian Ocean territory of Réunion. France's Saint Louis Sucre also received multimillion-dollar subsidies and the British sugar giant Tate & Lyle received hundreds of thousands of dollars.

Those bumper payouts are part of an E.U. plan to overhaul its sugar industry, after the World Trade Organization accused Europe in 2004 of violating global trade rules with its huge export subsidies. But while aid to the sugar industry is due to be phased out eventually, there is no end point for the help most of the E.U.'s other recipients are getting.

Last year, more than 1,200 of the recipients received more than $1 million each — a sharp increase from the approximately 900 such recipients in 2008. "The bigger you are, the more subsidies you get," says Jack Thurston, co-founder of FarmSubsidy.org. "It is the reverse of what you think a subsidy is."

Europe's generous aid to farmers is hardly new. For years they have been grist for complaints from major agricultural competitors — including the U.S. — who argue that they unfairly skew world markets and squeeze out producers who do not pay their local companies to grow crops. Under pressure from agricultural lobbyists and farm unions, European officials have so far resisted calls to overhaul the system, including those from critics within Europe.

Indeed, the subsidies have become so politically sensitive that Britain refused to release its 2009 figures until five days of wrangling over the nation's new government finally ended on May 11. When the list of recipients was released on Wednesday, it included the Queen, who FarmSubsidy.org says received $695,000 for the royal-owned Sandringham Farms.

"There are people in Brussels who want to spend this money on something else, like bailing out the banks or climate change," says Thurston. He argues that the subsidies have helped drive up the price of agricultural land in Europe, which forces new farmers to buy their farms at inflated prices — and hence keeps them dependent on help from Brussels. "New farmers have to buy into the system because the land comes with all these entitlements," he says.

But those pushing to reform the system sense that Europe's deep current economic crisis could be jolting officials into considering ways to overhaul subsidies. After all, with their huge debts, most E.U. governments are strapped for money. A formal E.U. reassessment of agricultural subsidies is due in 2013, but Europe's slow crawl out of recession could pressure leaders to rethink the system before then. "The economic crisis will have a strong impact," says Valentin Zahrnt, a research associate at the European Center for International Political Economy in Brussels. "With the budget crisis, governments are happy to save on subsidies."

Reeling from record-high deficits, the E.U. has already begun debating the issue of subsidies. In April, E.U. Agricultural Minister Dacian Ciolos told European parliamentarians that he was keen to limit the amount of subsidies given to big companies and to strengthen the links between farm production and local, regional and international markets.

The reformers' cause might be helped by the details emerging this week. According to FarmSubsidy.org, about $1 million was paid to the 27-year-old daughter of Bulgaria's former Deputy Agriculture Minister Dimitar Peichev, who until July 2009 was in charge of distributing E.U. subsidies in his country. Bulgaria's new Agricultural Minister said on May 10 that the government could not claim the money back from Peichev because its new anticorruption laws cannot be backdated.

Similarly, it's unlikely anyone will ask for the money back from the Dutch ice-skating club, which received about $204,000 last year in the form of E.U. farm subsidies, or the Danish billiards club, which received about $40,000. Another $124,000 went to Schiphol Airport outside Amsterdam. Subsidies were paid to a 14-year-old, as well as two 100-year-olds — both dead (although researchers don't know whether their relatives claimed the subsidies on their behalf or if they died after getting their money).

Recipients like these earned millions from Brussels thanks to the E.U.'s most recent reform of its agricultural subsidies, in 2003, which required only that recipients owned agricultural land. The change was supposed to discourage large corporations from benefiting too heavily.

"It's a perverse result of an intelligent move," says Zahrnt. "The real problem is that we have free handouts. They should be removed, rather than redistributed."

Just don't tell that to the Swedish accordion club.

Time

EU urged to force its green policies on world's farmers

The EU should force other world agricultural powers to adopt similar environmental rules if they wish to export to Europe, the chair of the European Parliament's agriculture committee, Paolo De Castro, said in an interview.

"Don't forget that Europe imports more food and agricultural products from all over the world than US, Canada and Australia put together, and 85% of African agricultural exports go to Europe," De Castro stressed.

While Europe should continue to be an open market, "the standards and rules followed by EU farmers should be followed even by the people who want to export to Europe," the socialist MEP said, adding that EU farmers would otherwise face unfair competition from the rest of the world.

The United States' Food and Drug Administration (FDA) only allows bottles of wine to be exported to the USA if US rules are followed, "and this is exactly what we have to introduce in Europe," De Castro argued.

Euractiv

EU gives Zimbabwe $13 million for smallholder farmers

The European Union has announced a $13 million fund to help thousands of Zimbabwean smallholder farmers, in a bid to revive the southern African country's agriculture sector after years of decline.

A former regional bread basket, Zimbabwe has suffered persistent food shortages since 2001, when President Robert Mugabe began a drive to seize white-owned commercial farms to resettle landless blacks.

The EU's food security co-ordinator in Zimbabwe, Pierre-Luc Vanhaeverbeke, told a news conference that 80,000 households would benefit from the $13 million donation through training and farming inputs such as seed and fertiliser.

The United Nations' Food and Agricultural Organisation (FAO) will coordinate the EU agricultural facility, as the bloc continues to shun direct cooperation with the government under sanctions imposed in 2002 over electoral fraud and rights abuses.

Mugabe, who formed a power-sharing government with former opposition rival Prime Minister Morgan Tsvangirai last February, accuses the West of undermining his rule as punishment for his land reforms.

Smallholder farmers have traditionally produced about 80 percent of Zimbabwe's staple maize, but a combination of seed and fertiliser shortages and limited access to funding have seen a sharp decline in output.

Zimbabwe, which requires at least 1.8 million tonnes of the staple grain annually, produced 1.2 million tonnes in the 2008/9 season.

The government -- which initially projected a 2.5 million tonne yield this year -- and farmers' unions have warned of a dip in output in the current season due to a lengthy mid-season dry spell.

Agriculture Minister Joseph Made last week called for the immediate importation of 500,000 tonnes of maize as a strategic grain reserve.

Reuters

WTO banana deal emerging

An end is in sight to the world's longest-running trade dispute, involving bananas, and a deal could be in place by the end of the year, senior European and Latin American trade negotiators said. Settling the banana dispute would be a fillip for the World Trade Organisation, whose long-running Doha round to free up global commerce, like other trade negotiations, has at times been held hostage by the decades-old row.

Cesar Montano Huerta, the top diplomat at the WTO mission of Ecuador, the world's biggest banana exporter, said officials were negotiating intensively and even hoped to clinch a deal in the next couple of weeks. The deal, which could be reached before the WTO's ministerial conference starting November 30, would see the European Union cutting tariffs on bananas for suppliers in Latin America and elsewhere. In return the Latin Americans would drop outstanding challenges to the EU at the WTO, and Brussels would provide compensation to African, Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) countries, mainly former British, French and Portuguese colonies, who would lose their preferential access to the European market. The detailed terms are likely to resemble an agreement almost reached in July last year on the fringes of a meeting of trade ministers seeking a breakthrough on the Doha talks.

Reuters

EU to fund Zimbabwe’s sugar industry

The European Union (EU) has pledged to disburse 2,3 million Euros to resuscitate the troubled industry. Hippo Valley Estates confirmed the funding of the industry by the EU, as part and parcel of the latter's adaptation strategy.

"As part of its adaptation strategy, 2,3 million Euros have been approved for disbursement allowing for the establishment of operational infrastructure for this programme," said a source from Hippo Valley.

Price controls introduced by the government last year and speculative activities caused the scarcity of sugar on the domestic market.Most retailers are selling imported sugar.This has adversely affected Hippo Valley's production capacity which has declined by 15 percent for the 2008/9 season.

The Sugar Industry managed to sell 185 935 tonnes on the domestic market which is 19 percent lower than the 229 433 tonnes sold last year.The reduction in production has been attributed to negative economic conditions which prevailed last year.

Zimeye

EU offers cuts to import duties on Latin American bananas

by Darren Ennis

The European Union has offered Latin America's top banana suppliers to initially cut duties on bananas to 148 euros per tonne from 176 euros now to try and end the world's longest-running trade dispute, a draft showed.

Under a draft proposal, the European Commission -- which oversees trade policy for the 27-nation bloc -- has proposed gradually lowering taxes on banana imports from Latin American countries to 114 euros per tonne by 2016.

The Commission's offer outlines possible arrangements if the stalled World Trade Organisation (WTO) Doha is not completed.

Ecuador, the world's largest exporter of bananas, has led pressure from Latin America for the EU to stick to the tariff deal negotiated in July 2008 on the sidelines of a Geneva meeting of ministers seeking a breakthrough in the WTO talks aimed at liberalising global trade.

When the WTO talks collapsed, the EU walked away, saying the banana deal had to be part of a wider Doha agreement. In the meantime Brussels has been pressing forward with talks aimed at securing free trade agreements (FTAs) with several Latin American countries. But the Latin Americans insist that bananas should be included in a separate pact.

"The initial reaction has been relatively positive from the Latin Americans. But the main stumbling block is the Doha caviat and the condition that any deal would have to be approved by the whole WTO which would give ACP (African, Caribbean and Pacific) countries a veto," a source familiar with the talks said.

The EU offers preferential access to its markets for the African, Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) countries, who are mainly former European colonies. African producers, like Cameroon, are particularly annoyed by the EU proposal. But Brussels is trying to find a package of financial aid for ACP banana producing countries to compensate them for any losses to their industry and unlock one of the barriers to a Doha deal.

Failure to resolve the banana row could block an overall Doha deal because the Doha proposals offer both slower tariff cuts on produce from poor developing countries, like the ACP states, and steeper cuts on tropical produce from countries like the Latin Americans.

The WTO has ruled that charging a tariff on Latin American bananas while letting in ACP fruit duty-free is discriminatory. It said the EU's previous regime, which admitted a quota of 2.2 million tonnes of Latin American bananas with a tariff of 75 euros a tonnes, was still in force.

In November, the WTO's top court ruled again against the EU in what has turned into the world's longest-running trade dispute. The following month, Ecuador said it could exercise its right to slap sanctions on the EU if the row was not settled.

Besides imposing trade sanctions, Ecuador could also challenge the controversial economic partnership agreements (EPAs) that Brussels is forging with developing countries to replace earlier illegal arrangements.

It could also challenge EU domestic subsidies at the WTO.

The EU's own producers in the French Caribbean and Spanish Canary Islands also objected to the July deal, but the source said Paris and Madrid "can be persuaded to get on board in return for some form of financial compensation for their producers".

Reuters

EU ready to assist Zimbabwe agriculture recover in event of 'acceptable' political settlement

Excerpts of a recent speech to the 2008 Annual Congress of the Commerical Farmers Union by Xavier Marchal, E.U. Ambassador to Zimbabwe:

It is the third time that I am honoured by addressing your annual Congress. Indeed a tradition now, going with the deep commitment of the European Commission towards land and agriculture in Zimbabwe, ever since we opened a delegation in Harare back in 1981.

After all, agriculture is one of the three main vertebras of the economic spinal cord of Zimbabwe, together with natural resources and mining. It has significantly contributed to making Zimbabwe what it was. And it can again rapidly become the engine of its recovery.

More importantly perhaps, and unnecessarily in my belief, land as also always been at the core of the tensions that have prevented this country from gaining full benefit from its potentialities, instead bringing it to its knees. It is again the case today, while Zimbabweans are trying to work out a solution to the major political crisis affecting them.

This is why it is so important for me to be here today. And the timing for this Congress could not have been better. I call on Zimbabweans to reach an Agreement which is legitimate, which is respecting rather than violating again the will of the Zimbabwean people, and which can be endorsed by the European Union.

Agriculture has collapsed. This year's harvest of the key crops has been catastrophic. The "mother of all agricultural season" has miscarried. I will spare you the figures. In the past months, rural communities have faced extreme political violence, with their dignity violated, and their assets destroyed. Commercial farmers have been brutalised, their farms grabbed for the wrong reasons.

Zimbabwe is on the brink of a humanitarian disaster, with extremely poor prospects for the next agricultural season. Yet as we speak, partners involved in key food aid and food security activities can still not operate properly, and I call again on Government to immediately and totally lift restrictions imposed on them.

I mentioned both small and commercial farmers. This is because the European Commission feels that the strength of agriculture in Zimbabwe relies precisely on their complementarities, even their symbiotic relationship. Small communal farmers need commercial farmers for technical and economic reasons; commercial farmers need small farmers for socio-political reasons. And Zimbabwe needs both.The Commission, as most here know, has remained ready to engage with Zimbabwe on land and agriculture, on a "give and take" basis. But without a "give", there cannot be a "take."

However, in the meantime we have continued to address food insecurity, and provided a staggering amount of 370 million euros since 2002. This is a shocking figure, mostly aimed at handouts. It is quantitative rather than qualitative money. We are also proceeding with supporting rural populations, through various projects aimed at building food security, through UN agencies and Non Government Organisations. This includes a programme to support small scale irrigation. Total amount here is around 45 million euros.

To that, we can add an amount of 15 million euros in emergency food aid earmarked for the coming months, to address the humanitarian crisis. Again, these are handouts, however necessary they are. If more is needed, we will try to respond.

When and if normality and legitimacy are re-established in Zimbabwe as a result of a fair political Agreement, endorsed by the European Union, then I believe that we could quickly move back to a businesslike relationship on land and agriculture. One of the first telephone calls of the new Minister of Agriculture could be to the European Commission, aimed at serious business.

We could then quickly move towards implementing the 10th European Development Fund, of which one of the two focal sectors is focused on land, agriculture, food security, and environment. The amount to be dedicated to this would be around 50 million euros.

Before that, we could finally implement my coffee initiative, aimed at turning around the coffee industry, which today is moribund with a disgraceful 500 tons yearly coming from 10 thousands tons in 2002. Little money needed here, and the plan is still in my drawer.

Zimbabwe could take full advantage of an EC funded Sugar Adaptation Strategy, aimed at bringing back her Sugar Industry from abyss to world class level again, with the best yields worldwide. The amount possible for this could reach 45 million euros over six years.

We could move swiftly to implement a vast EC funded Stabex programme, through the main Unions, the CFU, the ZFU, and the ZCFU. We have started this programme, but with snail pace, deliberately, in order to avoid having to send the funds back for other performing countries, as long as we can. The amount possible for this programme reaches 20 million euros. We could implement all recommendations of studies we are currently conducting, on land reform, on the compensation issue, on the best strategies for a commercial agriculture, to name but a few. Zimbabwe could take full advantage of significant and unused possibilities offered by trade relations.

Perhaps more importantly and timely, there is the potential prospect of Zimbabwe benefiting from a new initiative from the Commission, aimed at farmers in Africa, to help them tackle high food prices and boost output. This is a massive scheme, just launched, provided with one billion euros (1.6 billion USD), with 750 million euros earmarked for 2008 and the remainder for 2009.

These funds will be channelled to developing countries through international or regional organisations, such as the Food and Agriculture Organisation and the World Food Programme. Four areas of financial support are envisaged, the main two being to improve access to farming inputs such as fertilisers and seeds, as well as ways to improve agricultural capacity and production.

Zimbabwe has been classified by the European Union as a country in severe food crisis and could in principle benefit from this fund, significantly. What we need to make these significant resources available, is normalisation based on clear principles making reengagement possible, cleared by the European Union, and following a genuine and legitimate Political Agreement.

And then of course we need also a proper Business Plan from the Minister of Agriculture.A Business Plan providing for genuine agricultural policies, in which all farmers are desired stakeholders, in which private sector and property rights are respected, and in which all skills of this country are brought to work for the common cause.A Business Plan in which a very much needed land reform is conducted for its real purpose, not for political reasons or simply patronage.A Business Plan in which the true asset of Zimbabwe in term of land and agriculture is fully valued and highlighted: this is the symbiotic relationship between farmers of all size and race I have mentioned.A Business Plan in which problems are transformed into opportunities.A Business Plan which can receive full support of the EC and the international community, allowing Zimbabwe to return to a world class position.

Radio VOP 

Latin American vs. ACP differences over EU banana tariffs threaten WTO talks

Latin America was on a collision course with rival exporters on July 17 over the European Union's banana import tariffs, a long-standing dispute that threatens to spill into world trade talks this week.

The EU has been at loggerheads with Latin American exporters for more than a decade because it offers preferential terms to former European colonies in Africa, the Caribbean and the Pacific, putting no tariffs on their bananas.

World Trade Organisation Director-General Pascal Lamy tried last week to settle the banana dispute and prevent the issue from further complicating attempts at a breakthrough in Doha Round negotiations over a global trade deal. Lamy said the EU should make annual cuts to its tariff of 176 euros ($280) per tonne of bananas, to reach 116 euros by 2015. In return, Latin American governments would sign a "peace clause" and drop lawsuits against the European Union.

The African, Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) countries are angry at not being consulted over Lamy's proposal and said that such a tariff cut would devastate their production.

Latin American banana exporters, which over the years have filed a string of WTO cases against the EU's banana policy, say they will push hard for better terms.

The world's top banana exporter, Ecuador, said Lamy's offer fell short and asked for deeper and more immediate duty cuts but hoped to reach an agreement before next week's trade talks in Switzerland.

"Latin American countries should not be blamed for hurting trade rounds, but instead the European Union for not being willing to give us a proper duty 12 to 15 years ago," said Mentor Villagomez, Ecuador's head trade negotiator. "We think there is still time ... if both parties are willing, I think we could reach an agreement in time."

In a joint statement, Panama's WTO ambassador and the country's chief trade negotiator said Latin American banana exporters were entitled to a substantial cut applied to the existing EU tariff "plus proper Doha cuts on top of that."

"They are willing to be reasonable in the interest of settling this long dispute but will need to see a better starting reduction, phase-in period and final rate than the one the EC (European Commission) is willing to accept," it said.

Costa Rica seemed more positive on Lamy's proposal. "We hope we can secure an agreement. We are seeing very positive signs so far," said Costa Rica's trade minister Marco Vinicio Ruiz.

Industry sources said Colombia is also willing to accept the offer to quickly lock a separate trade deal with the EU over a wider range of products.But experts said Latin American exporters were unlikely to agree as heavyweights Ecuador, Colombia and Costa Rica have different interests.

Ecuador said it held talks with ACP members over the possible impact on their exports to Europe but was not willing to jeopardize its "legitimate rights" to demand a tariff cut.

ACP banana exporters include Cameroon and Ivory Coast, Africa's leading producers of the fruit.

The group issued a veiled threat, hinting it might not sign up to either a Doha deal or long-awaited preferential trade deals with Brussels, known as Economic Partnership Agreements.

If bananas get dragged into the wider WTO negotiations on farm tariffs, then the Lamy proposal could face a veto from ACP countries which do not want rival Latin American exporters to grab a larger share of the lucrative EU market.

"There is no way they can reach an agreement before trade talks. This banana problem goes all the way back to when the European Union was being formed," said Thomas Spreen, a food economics professor at the University of Florida."There are too many interests involved."

Earlier on July 17, EU Trade Commissioner Peter Mandelson warned banana exporters that they risked derailing the trade talks if they refused to be flexible on EU import duties.

U.S. Trade Representative Susan Schwab, speaking on a conference call, said she had pledged to work with European, Latin American and ACP countries to resolve the banana issue before next week's talks, and if not, in Geneva itself.

"I think it would be a very sad commentary if we had all the makings of a breakthrough on the Doha Round and then it fell apart on this issue," Schwab said.

The Guardian

French president Sarkozy suggests support for tougher EU produce import standards

French President Nicolas Sarkozy has expressed new concerns about the direction of European agricultural policy.

He has questioned moves to cut farm production at a time of increasing global shortages as well as Europe’s decision to impose tough standards on farmers without the same restrictions being enforced on those that ship produce into the EU.

His comments at the European Parliament re-ignite the ongoing war of words he has been having with under-fire European Trade Commissioner Peter Mandelson. The former British government minister has been persistently accused for months of negotiating too much away in ongoing world trade talks, and leaving EU farmers exposed.

Sarkozy said European farmers would be worse off and threatened to veto Mr Mandelson’s planned deal. He asked the parliament: “Is it reasonable to ask the EU to reduce its agricultural production when the world has never needed food so much? I don’t think it is reasonable. It is not about French agriculture, it is about commonsense. Food security is everyone’s concern. It is reasonable to require of our farmers to abide by rules of security and traceability and still import meat from other countries who do not abide by those rules. This is the right time to talk about prices, subsidies and community preferences. I think we can reach agreement on concepts like food security and safety.”

Sarkozy also said Europe needed to debate its border controls and the amount of produce that can be shipped into the EU. He said it was only but fair and right that if Europe imposed controls on its food producers the same standards should apply to imports into the EU.

“That’s not a question of protectionism. It’s a question of fairness and justice and refusing to be naive.”

Mr Sarkozy’s remarks were welcomed by NFU Scotland president Jim McLaren who was encouraged at the commonsense language used by the French president. “Farmers in Scotland, like their EU and French counterparts, are only looking for a fair and reasonable system of control over the standards of the production systems operated by those who would bring imports into Europe.

“It cannot be right for Mr Mandelson to be negotiating away the access to EU agricultural markets with no regard for the different standards and consequentially the different costs of producing products in non-EU countries.

“Scottish farmers, like French farmers, only seek the illusive level playing field. It is this which will ultimately deliver sustainable and affordable food supplies to our own consumers in a world of increasing uncertainty over supplies from elsewhere.

“What a breath of fresh air to hear a European political leader speaking out for commonsense, fairness and justice in the world of agriculture.”

Press and Journal

EU farm ministers to debate GM soybean, cotton imports

European Union farm ministers will this week debate whether to allow imports of genetically modified strains of cotton and soybeans to be used as food ingredients and in animal feed, a document showed on Monday.

If approved, which diplomats say is unlikely, the two GM crops would be grown outside the European Union and then imported as finished products for further processing. Both have been developed by Germany's Bayer CropScience.

EU countries rarely agree on GMO issues and discussions on authorizing imports of new modified products usually end in deadlock.

When ministers fail to reach a majority under a complex weighted voting system either to reject or approve the application, EU law provides for the European Commission, the bloc's executive, to issue a default approval.

The ministers' meeting is scheduled for July 15. Neither GM product would be approved for cultivation inside the EU.

The cotton, known as LLCotton25, has been engineered to resist certain herbicides. If approved, which would be for a standard 10 years, LLCotton25 seeds and derived products could be imported for use as food -- crushed into oil, for example -- as well as animal feed, like cottonseed meal and seed hulls.

Bayer's soybean, developed to resist glufosinate herbicides, is known by its codename A2704-12 and would be imported into EU markets either as whole soybeans, oil or meal. It would then be processed by European companies for use in food and animal feed.

Reuters

Europe's agriculture support model should not be copied elsewhere

Europe's system of agricultural support should not be emulated in other regions of the world grappling with high food prices, the top United Nations official for humanitarian affairs has suggested.

Earlier this year, Michel Barnier, the French agriculture minister, stated that the original rationale behind the European Union's common agricultural policy (CAP) was to ensure self-sufficiency in food and that this could serve as a "good model" for developing similar ways of protecting farming in Africa, Asia and Latin America.

Barnier's comments have been followed by bickering over agriculture in recent weeks between France and the European Commission, the EU executive. Nicolas Sarkozy, the French president, has alleged that Peter Mandelson, the EU's trade commissioner, is seeking to destroy support for farmers in the ongoing round of world trade talks. Mandelson, who negotiates on behalf of all 27 EU governments, including France, has in turn claimed that Sarkozy is trying to weaken his position in the negotiations.

John Holmes, the UN's emergency relief coordinator, took issue with Barnier's recommendation Jul. 3. "I'm not sure it (the CAP) is a model that could easily be replicated elsewhere," sai Holmes, a former British ambassador to Paris. "There are problems with the system, such as its trade-distorting subsidies."

Holmes, who sits on a UN task force charged with examining the appropriate short and longer-term responses to the global food crisis, urged the EU's policy-makers to address how their lavish farm subsidy regime has had a deleterious effect on poor countries. "With the new circumstances, there is a serious need to look at how trade-distorting subsidies affect the ability of developing countries to produce and export," he said.

While Holmes argued that more food assistance is required to help the poor deal with soaring prices, he added: "In the longer term we need to address the question of why there has been a lack of investment in agriculture over the last 20 to 30 years. The proportion of international aid that is helping agriculture has fallen from 10 percent to 3 percent. Those proportions need to be reversed again."

Josep Borrell, chairman of the European Parliament's development committee, said that the spike in food prices had followed the implementation of European policies that had kept prices low in poor countries, with devastating consequences for farmers' income. "We've created a vicious circle," he said. "We needed low price food to keep the urban population alive. But this damaged food production."

Henri Rouille D'Orfeuil from Coordination Sud, an umbrella group for French anti-poverty campaigners, argued that international trade policies have created "a pauperisation of farmers" in recent years. "When the world market suffers, the national and local market is no longer present to counteract this."

Mariann Fischer Boel, the European commissioner for agriculture, noted that despite the riots seen over inflation in many poor countries in the past few months, food prices have been decreasing over the last 30 years. In 1975, cereals were twice as expensive as they are today. "The problem (recently) is that prices have been skyrocketing over a very, very short period," she said.

While several European governments have been reluctant to authorise the planting and sale of genetically modified organisms (GMOs), Fischer Boel suggested that biotechnology could be beneficial for Africa. "I know that some hate it when we talk about GMOs," she added. "But they are part of the discussion that we need to have about who will feed the world. I don't say they are the only solution but part of the discussion needed."

Greenpeace argued that biotechnology offers no cure to the structural problems facing agriculture in poor countries. "There is no one-size-fits-all solution to the current increase in food prices," said Marco Contiero, a campaigner with the environmental group. "Any claim that a single technology, such as genetically modified plants, is a silver bullet for our future food supply is simply false, and distracts attention away from the real solutions. Modern, bio-diverse, non-GM farming methods that ensure higher yields, that are more climate resilient, which do not destroy natural resources and can provide better livelihoods for farmers around the world are the only way forward."

Saliou Sarr, the Senegalese coordinator with the network of West African agricultural organisations (known by its French acronym ROPPA), noted that African governments have agreed to devote at least 10 percent of their national budgets to supporting farming by 2015. Many, however, are struggling to reach that target.

In return for receiving finance from the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund, numerous poor countries were required to slash their expenditure on farming in the 1980s. Lennart Bage, president of the International Fund for Agricultural Development, pointed out that governments in Africa reduced their spending on agriculture by one-third.

IPS

Unused EU farm subsidies to benefit African farmers

The European Union will channel 1 billion euros in unused European farm subsidies to African farmers as part of its response to the global food crisis, the head of the EU executive has said.

"The EU really can give a boost to agriculture in developing countries," European Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso told reporters on the first day of a meeting of G8 rich nations' leaders in northern Japan, where soaring food prices are high on the agenda.

The EU executive has previously outlined its intention of taking up to 1 billion euros of unspent EU farm subsidies between now and the end of 2009 and using the money for seed and fertiliser and other agriculture projects in Africa.

The proposal will have to be approved by ministers from the EU's 27 countries and the European Parliament.

Europe's Common Agricultural Policy eats up more than 40 billion euros a year in subsidies and other farm spending.

The World Bank has estimated that about $10 billion is needed in short-term aid to help poor countries face the global food and fuel price crisis.

Reuters