Making European fisheries more sustainable, stop overfishing and ban fish discards - those are the centerpieces of the new European fisheries policy. Fisheries Commissioner Maria Damanaki presented it to the media and the European Parliament last week; now it will go through the institutions and the European lobbies. While fisheries lobbies, NGOs and the European Parliament are starting to haggle about new fisheries quotas (set to be auctioned in much the same way as CO2 emission allowances are now), little attention goes to the fact that the EU currently subsidizes European fisheries in third-country waters with 65€ per ton.
The Commission regularly negotiates fisheries protocols with third countries, which are subsequently agreed between the EP's Fisheries and Development Committee (curtailed by the assent procedure, see Art. 218(6)(a) TFEU) and nodded off by the Council. In these protocols, lawmakers specify an upper limit of catches (e.g. 52000 tons per year in Seychelles). Up to this limit, the EU guarantees payment to the third country government, regardless of the number of total catches (fishermen add another 35€/ton). For every catch beyond the limit, the EU doubles its contribution to 130€/ton.
In effect, this not only encourages fishermen to rid the Seychelles of a full 52000 tons per year until 2014 (if they catch less, you and me provide free money to the Seychelles government), but also encourages the Seychelles government to neglect their fish stocks and to pocket a full 165€ for every ton exceeding the limit of 52000 tons/year. The agreement with São Tomé and Príncipe is based on the same terms, while new agreements with Cape Verde and Gabon are currently in the making. Overall, 15 agreements with developing countries are in force today. The consequences of the EU's policies are disastrous: No more fish by 2030.
In its new proposal, the Commission acknowledges that until now it had no information about other fisheries agreements concluded by the partner country, so that it was "often impossible to [...] determine the share of the surplus to be sustainably fished by the EU fleet". The new Common Fisheries Policy will subject EU vessels in foreign waters to the quota trading system, but the current agreements are valid until 2014 and the CFP reform is expected to take a few years until it is adopted. Therefore, in the short term, the EU will continue exploiting foreign waters and depleting African countries of the fish stocks.
3 July was the day of the year on which we started eating non-EU fish. If we want to save fish stocks in Africa, we should get selective about the fish we eat.
Update 16/09/2011: In a video interview, influential Development MEP Charles Goerens from Luxembourg told me that the fisheries agreements between the EU and African countries should in effect be phased out.
Showing posts with label Consumption. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Consumption. Show all posts
Tuesday, July 19, 2011
Tuesday, March 16, 2010
Christine Lagarde is right
It is surprising how harsh the reactions were from the German side when French finance minister Christine Lagarde told policy-makers in Berlin to step up domestic consumption. German enterpreneurs suggested other Member States "do their homework" and step up their own competitiveness so that they wouldn't need additional German investment. The government and Commissioner Günter Oettinger agreed that German products should remain cheap as not to compromise its export revenues.
But in my view, Christine Lagarde is absolutely right. As I have expressed here, Germany's so-called "competitiveness" is essentially a public bailout of the enterprises on the shoulders of the working population. Of course it is true that Germany has the strongest economy in Europe and contributes much to growth in other Member States. But that can be increased by shifting resources back from the businesses to the consumer: A legally imposed minimum wage as practiced almost everywhere in the EU would raise aggregate consumption - and note that people have proven on various occasions throughout the crisis that they did not save the money they had at their disposal - which then means
Therefore, Christine Lagarde is absolutely right. For the last ten years, German entreprises, withholding pay rises of the employees despite inflation and higher product revenues, have benefitted from a society that does not take to the street except against nuclear power and right-extremists. They have benefitted from a disunited, individualized workforce that can be easily put under pressure. They have benefitted from state contributions if they employed a recipient of social security.
Let's not talk about repaying those ten years. But it is about time the employees/consumers obtained their rights for the benefit of the rest of Europe.
Update: Couldn't say it better than Robert von Heusinger in this article (translation: Google Languages/myself):
"Let's take the economic growth as the epitome of wealth and power of an economy. Here the matter is clear: France grew by an average of 1.5 percent in the last ten years, while Germany only grew by paltry 0.8 percent. Also in terms of employment as the epitome of participation and self-esteem of the people, the country across the Rhine performed better: while France's employment grew by 0.8 percent per year on average, in Germany it only climbed by 0.5 percent.
Where does this French success come from? From domestic demand, private consumption. It averaged 2.2 percent, four times as high as in Germany (0.5 percent). How did France achieve this - in spite of globalization? Through higher wages, that's the simple answer. The slightly more sophisticated one: it was achieved through an economic policy that recognizes interrelationships instead of blindly reducing national debt, shrinking the state sector, and relying merely on competitiveness."
Update 2: Christine Lagarde is completely wrong, on the other hand, if she suggests to finance consumer spending through tax cuts. That would take money away from state services like education and research and development that dearly need it. Consumer spending has to be financed through the real economy. The money has to be shifted from the enterprises to the citizens, not from the state to the citizens.
But in my view, Christine Lagarde is absolutely right. As I have expressed here, Germany's so-called "competitiveness" is essentially a public bailout of the enterprises on the shoulders of the working population. Of course it is true that Germany has the strongest economy in Europe and contributes much to growth in other Member States. But that can be increased by shifting resources back from the businesses to the consumer: A legally imposed minimum wage as practiced almost everywhere in the EU would raise aggregate consumption - and note that people have proven on various occasions throughout the crisis that they did not save the money they had at their disposal - which then means
- more consumption of domestic goods and services
- more consumption of foreign (inter alia European) goods and services
- more possibility to invest in enterprises at home and abroad, and thereby a greater involvement of the citizens into economic decision-making and a greater democracy in some enterprises
Therefore, Christine Lagarde is absolutely right. For the last ten years, German entreprises, withholding pay rises of the employees despite inflation and higher product revenues, have benefitted from a society that does not take to the street except against nuclear power and right-extremists. They have benefitted from a disunited, individualized workforce that can be easily put under pressure. They have benefitted from state contributions if they employed a recipient of social security.
Let's not talk about repaying those ten years. But it is about time the employees/consumers obtained their rights for the benefit of the rest of Europe.
Update: Couldn't say it better than Robert von Heusinger in this article (translation: Google Languages/myself):
"Let's take the economic growth as the epitome of wealth and power of an economy. Here the matter is clear: France grew by an average of 1.5 percent in the last ten years, while Germany only grew by paltry 0.8 percent. Also in terms of employment as the epitome of participation and self-esteem of the people, the country across the Rhine performed better: while France's employment grew by 0.8 percent per year on average, in Germany it only climbed by 0.5 percent.
Where does this French success come from? From domestic demand, private consumption. It averaged 2.2 percent, four times as high as in Germany (0.5 percent). How did France achieve this - in spite of globalization? Through higher wages, that's the simple answer. The slightly more sophisticated one: it was achieved through an economic policy that recognizes interrelationships instead of blindly reducing national debt, shrinking the state sector, and relying merely on competitiveness."
Update 2: Christine Lagarde is completely wrong, on the other hand, if she suggests to finance consumer spending through tax cuts. That would take money away from state services like education and research and development that dearly need it. Consumer spending has to be financed through the real economy. The money has to be shifted from the enterprises to the citizens, not from the state to the citizens.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)