What Does Ceta Bring to Organic Production?

B. Stipešević
{"title":"What Does Ceta Bring to Organic Production?","authors":"B. Stipešević","doi":"10.2478/pannonia-2019-0015","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Even though eco-production is based on principles brought by IFOAM (International Federation of Organic Agriculture Movements), the standards which were brought in by the national and supranational governments may differentiate in parts of regulation. The mutual recognition/equivalence of eco-standards of the EU (»EU-eco« label, based on regulation of the European Commission EZ 834/2007: 139-and EZ 889/2008: 173-256, and other regulations derived from them) and Canada (»Canada organic« label, based on valid Canadian eco-standards, regulation CAN/CGSB-32.310-2015: 53 and CAN/CGSB-32.311-2015: 75) has been present for multiple years and has been re-evaluated and confirmed in 2015 as a successful practice in the increase of access to an expanded market for producers, increase of selection for consumers and lightening the regulatory cooperation. Before mutual recognition exported eco-product from Canada to the EU (and vice-versa) had to go through recertification, which created additional expenses for exporting eco-producers (10 thousand dollars per year, on average). This process mostly resulted in an increased price of eco-products for the end consumer. In some areas the Canadian eco-regulation is stricter than the EU one, while in other it is vice versa. Some markings can mislead the consumer, especially the one who does not read the product declaration where such misgivings are clearly visible and marked. The greatest challenge for eco-production in the EU is the increase in demand for eco-products with such a speed that EU farmers cannot satisfy it, which inevitably leads to an increase of import from non-EU countries. Therefore, the help of EU governments is essential in the form of support for farmers who decide to transition into eco-production. Certain estimates say that the CETA could mean a loss of a great number of producers (estimating that it could be several thousand workplaces in agriculture across the EU). A similar agreement between the US and Mexico already led to a loss of workplace for 2 million people in Mexico in the midst of inability to compete with the industrial production of the US. The greatest fear present in eco-production is that the international agricultural businesses can force national and supranational governments to lower standards by using lawsuits, which can consequentially result in lower standards in eco-production on both sides of the Atlantic and influence the environment. It is not based on the scientific/expert arguments which governs the ecological agriculture, but a pure race for profit. Therefore, it can be expected that, once again, »greed overcomes reason«. Nevertheless, the high set »bar« of eco-production »from both sides of the pond« is the best »defence« against the fear that CETA will bring any novelties into the life of eco-producers.","PeriodicalId":32127,"journal":{"name":"Pannoniana","volume":"22 1","pages":"285 - 292"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Pannoniana","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2478/pannonia-2019-0015","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Abstract Even though eco-production is based on principles brought by IFOAM (International Federation of Organic Agriculture Movements), the standards which were brought in by the national and supranational governments may differentiate in parts of regulation. The mutual recognition/equivalence of eco-standards of the EU (»EU-eco« label, based on regulation of the European Commission EZ 834/2007: 139-and EZ 889/2008: 173-256, and other regulations derived from them) and Canada (»Canada organic« label, based on valid Canadian eco-standards, regulation CAN/CGSB-32.310-2015: 53 and CAN/CGSB-32.311-2015: 75) has been present for multiple years and has been re-evaluated and confirmed in 2015 as a successful practice in the increase of access to an expanded market for producers, increase of selection for consumers and lightening the regulatory cooperation. Before mutual recognition exported eco-product from Canada to the EU (and vice-versa) had to go through recertification, which created additional expenses for exporting eco-producers (10 thousand dollars per year, on average). This process mostly resulted in an increased price of eco-products for the end consumer. In some areas the Canadian eco-regulation is stricter than the EU one, while in other it is vice versa. Some markings can mislead the consumer, especially the one who does not read the product declaration where such misgivings are clearly visible and marked. The greatest challenge for eco-production in the EU is the increase in demand for eco-products with such a speed that EU farmers cannot satisfy it, which inevitably leads to an increase of import from non-EU countries. Therefore, the help of EU governments is essential in the form of support for farmers who decide to transition into eco-production. Certain estimates say that the CETA could mean a loss of a great number of producers (estimating that it could be several thousand workplaces in agriculture across the EU). A similar agreement between the US and Mexico already led to a loss of workplace for 2 million people in Mexico in the midst of inability to compete with the industrial production of the US. The greatest fear present in eco-production is that the international agricultural businesses can force national and supranational governments to lower standards by using lawsuits, which can consequentially result in lower standards in eco-production on both sides of the Atlantic and influence the environment. It is not based on the scientific/expert arguments which governs the ecological agriculture, but a pure race for profit. Therefore, it can be expected that, once again, »greed overcomes reason«. Nevertheless, the high set »bar« of eco-production »from both sides of the pond« is the best »defence« against the fear that CETA will bring any novelties into the life of eco-producers.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Ceta给有机生产带来了什么?
尽管生态生产是基于IFOAM(国际有机农业运动联合会)提出的原则,但国家和超国家政府提出的标准可能在部分监管方面有所不同。欧盟(“欧盟生态”标签,基于欧盟委员会EZ 834/2007: 139和EZ 889/2008: 179 -256的法规,以及源自这些法规的其他法规)和加拿大(“加拿大有机”标签,基于有效的加拿大生态标准,法规CAN/CGSB-32.310-2015: 53和CAN/CGSB-32.311-2015;75)已经存在多年,并在2015年被重新评估和确认为一种成功的做法,为生产者增加了进入扩大市场的机会,为消费者增加了选择,并减轻了监管合作。在相互承认之前,从加拿大出口到欧盟的生态产品(反之亦然)必须经过重新认证,这给出口生态生产商带来了额外的费用(平均每年1万美元)。这一过程主要导致最终消费者的生态产品价格上涨。在某些领域,加拿大的生态法规比欧盟严格,而在另一些领域则相反。有些标记可能会误导消费者,特别是那些没有阅读产品声明的消费者,因为这种疑虑是清晰可见和标记的。欧盟生态生产面临的最大挑战是,对生态产品的需求以欧盟农民无法满足的速度增长,这不可避免地导致从非欧盟国家进口的增加。因此,欧盟各国政府以支持农民向生态生产转型的形式提供帮助是必不可少的。某些估计认为,CETA可能意味着大量生产者的损失(估计这可能是整个欧盟数千个农业工作岗位)。美国和墨西哥之间的类似协议已经导致墨西哥失去了200万人的工作岗位,因为墨西哥无法与美国的工业生产竞争。生态生产中存在的最大恐惧是,国际农业企业可以通过诉讼迫使国家和超国家政府降低标准,这可能导致大西洋两岸生态生产标准的降低,并影响环境。它不是基于科学/专家的论点来管理生态农业,而是纯粹的利润竞赛。因此,可以预期,再一次,“贪婪战胜理性”。然而,“来自池塘两岸”的生态生产的高“门槛”是对CETA将给生态生产者的生活带来任何新奇事物的恐惧的最好“防御”。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
28 weeks
期刊最新文献
Environmental Aesthetics and Land Art The Development and Activity of the Society “Our Children” Belišće Bioethics and “The Most Important of the Least Important Things” Relationship Between Emergencies and Child Mental Health Anointing of the Sick in the Intensive Medicine Unit - Last Greeting or Call for Help
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1