Signs of movement on CAP reform in France (well, sort of)

by | Nov 11, 2010 | Climate and resource scarcity

This from ICTSD in Geneva:

Days after calling for a dramatic reorientation of European farm subsidies towards environmental protection, the French ministry for ecology and sustainable development has taken the controversial proposal off its website, following a firestorm of protest from the country’s farm lobby. Environmentalists and others, however, have praised the ideas in document. They want it to be reinstated online, and are seeking the launch of an inter-ministerial consultation process on the subject.

The 20-page proposal, entitled “Pour une politique agricole durable en 2013? (”For a sustainable agriculture policy in 2013?) was published by the French Ministry for Ecology, Energy, Sustainable Development and the Sea in late October. However, the news portal Euractiv.fr reported that the text was no longer available online on 4 November, two days after a farm group voiced objections.

[snip]

The ministry proposes abolishing the existing two-pillar structure for farm payments, and replacing this with a series of separate policy instruments that would achieve these three goals. Income payments – determined by farm workers rather than by the number of hectares – would guarantee a minimal income. Environmental payments, linked to compliance with standards, would be covered by a second category of support. A third category, based on contracts, would help farmers move toward more ecological methods of production.

Baby steps, but surprising all the same.

On a related note – some are starting to wonder whether one silver lining of the mid-term results in the US could be that the Republicans might start to push back on US farm support, including on biofuels, as part of a broader reaction against federal subsidies. (Contrary to what you might have thought, the biggest demandeurs for farm subsidies on the Hill are often Democrats rather than Republicans. Of the five largest corn producing states, three – Iowa, Illinois and Minnesota – are generally seen as blue rather than red states.)

We can but hope – especially since the recent trend has been in the wrong direction. Btw, if you’re following biofuels, this excellent Economist briefing from last week is worth reading.

How many people can the earth support?

by | Nov 9, 2010 | Climate and resource scarcity, Economics and development

Here’s Lester Brown’s take:

One of the questions I am often asked is, “How many people can the earth support?” I answer with another question: “At what level of food consumption?” Using round numbers, at the U.S. level of 800 kilograms of grain per person annually for food and feed, the 2-billion-ton annual world harvest of grain would support 2.5 billion people. At the Italian level of consumption of close to 400 kilograms, the current harvest would support 5 billion people. At the 200 kilograms of grain consumed by the average Indian, it would support 10 billion.

Of the roughly 800 kilograms of grain consumed per person each year in the United States, about 100 kilograms is eaten directly as bread, pasta, and breakfast cereals, while the bulk of the grain is consumed indirectly in the form of livestock and poultry products. By contrast, in India, where people consume just under 200 kilograms of grain per year, or roughly a pound per day, nearly all grain is eaten directly to satisfy basic food energy needs. Little is available for conversion into livestock products.

Among the United States, Italy, and India, life expectancy is highest in Italy even though U.S. medical expenditures per person are much higher. People who live very low or very high on the food chain do not live as long as those at an intermediate level. People consuming a Mediterranean-type diet that includes meat, cheese, and seafood, but all in moderation, are healthier and live longer. People living high on the food chain can improve their health by moving down the food chain. For those who live in low-income countries like India, where a starchy staple such as rice can supply 60 percent or more of total caloric intake, eating more protein-rich foods can improve health and raise life expectancy.

I can’t vouch for the accuracy of Brown’s figures – but he’s totally right that the whole question of diet is fundamental to whether we manage to feed the world’s rising population. I’m always struck by how the global food policy conversation often accepts demand projections – such as the World Bank’s estimate that we’ll need to produce 50% more food by 2030 – more or less uncritically.

In fact, as Brown’s final paragraph above implies, meeting these business-as-usual projections also implies that we cheerfully accept continuation of current increases in overweight, obesity, diabetes, heart disease and so on – not just in OECD economies, but increasingly in the developing world too.

Unfortunately, as I noted back in September, no OECD governments are yet making any real headway in nudging their citizens towards diets that are healthier, more environmentally sustainable and more compatible with development and social justice. They need to find a way.

The rather different foreign policy worries of publics and elites

by | Nov 8, 2010 | Influence and networks, UK

Back in July, Chatham House and YouGov, the polling organisation, published some data on UK attitudes on foreign policy (pdf). There’s lots of interesting stuff in there, including on attitudes to development, but for me the stand-out story is the extent to which opinion formers and the general public have strikingly different views of which global risks matter most for the UK.

As part of the survey, a group of opinion formers and a random sample of the general public were both read a list of “current or possible future threats to the British way of life”, and asked to select three or four as the greatest threats.

For the opinion formers, the top two risks were “failure of major banks / failure of the international financial system” and “interruptions to our energy supplies, such as oil and gas”. In each case, the percentage of the general public including these risks in their three or four responses was at least 15% lower than for policy elites. For climate change (fourth in opinion formers’ list of worries), the gulf between elites and public is 19%.

The public, on the other hand, is much more worried about hard security threats. While opinion formers rate “international terrorism” third on their list of worries, the public put it top, with 6% more of them citing it. The gap is even more pronounced on “more countries, such as Iran and North Korea, developing nuclear weapons” – 52% of the public versus 39% of opinion formers – and “organized crime, including hard drugs, operating across borders” (42% of rhe public, 23% of opinion formers).

None of this is all that surprising – but it’s kind of a big deal, given that publics actually wield considerable influence in determining how much political space policymakers have to play with when dealing with global risks, and the fact that so many key multilateral processes are currently stalled.