The European Commission has issued a warning about imbalances in France's economy. But an excessive budget deficit threatens to expose the country to first-time sanctions.

France and Slovenia are the only two countries to have received a specific recommendation from the EU executive on public deficits.

During the presentation of its country-specific analysis of macroeconomic imbalances on 5 March, the Commission has used “a new instrument to attract the attention of two Eurozone member states, namely France and Slovenia on the risk of non-compliance with the recommended budget target for this year.”

Already under an excessive deficit procedure, France pledged to reduce its annual budget deficit under 3% of Gross Domestic Product (GDP) after having been granted a two-year delay in May last year.

>> Read: Barroso urges ‘credible reforms’ in France in return for deficit grace period

But this week's assessment gives little hope that France will deliver on its commitment, making the Commission recommendation sound like a serious warning.

The French government pledged to reduce its annual deficit to 3.6% of GDP in 2014 and hopes to lower it further to 2.8% in 2015. But in its latest macroeconomic forecast, published on 25 February, the EU executive is much more pessimistic, expecting a deficit of 4% of GDP by the year’s end, and 3.9% in 2015.

Paris claims the difference can be explained by the Commission's lack of consideration of its latest economic reforms. “For 2014, the Commission’s forecast remains surrounded by many uncertainties,” the French ministry of economy and finances said in a statement.

But the view from Brussels is quite different. “The French government has a tendency to overestimate the impact of its reforms and its savings plans,” says an EU expert who argues that the EU executive has already taken into account a number of recent reforms announced by Paris in its budget estimates. Those include the tax credit for competitiveness and employment, and all the implemented reforms except the recently-announced “responsibility pact” which is not considered sufficiently detailed.

The pact was announced by President François Hollande and plans to cut €30 billion of employers’ contributions by 2017.

“We’re looking forward to be able to analyse the details,” the EU economic and monetary affairs Commissioner Olli Rehn said at a press conference in Brussels.

Corrective arm?

Now that the alarm has been raised, France’s options look limited. The objective of bringing down the annual deficit to 3% of GDP by 2015 does seem not renegotiable at the moment, particularly because of pressure from Germany.

France still has the option of adjusting its effort on structural reforms. “France can possibly offer a new path to reduce its deficit,” an expert concedes. However flexibility is limited, and there is no guarantee that the Commission is prepared to review its recommendations.

In any case, the Commission can now make decisions quickly on the French deficit. Spelling out a new recommendation is one of the options, but the use of sanctions is not off the table. This would be a first under the growth and stability pact.

If the structural effort by France does not comply with the Commission’s objectives for 2013 and 2014, the EU executive is required to make a recommendation to the Council by proposing sanctions. The 28 member states must then approve the recommendation with a reverse qualified majority, meaning a qualified majority of member states have to vote against the recommendation in order to reject it.

Persistent imbalances

On the macroeconomic imbalances front, the Commission pins down 14 member states: Belgium, Bulgaria, Germany, Ireland, Spain, France, Hungary, the Netherlands, Finland, Sweden and the United Kingdom. In three countries, those imbalances are considered excessive: Croatia, Italy and Slovenia.

In France, despite the measures taken to boost competitiveness, “the cost of labour remains high and weighs on companies,” Olli Rehn said. “To meet the competitiveness challenges, France needs to improve the business environment and strengthen competition in services,” the Commissioner recommended.

The EU executive should spell out more detailed recommendations for each member state in early June, after countries submit their mid-term budgetary plans.

Despite tightened surveillance by the Commission, which is calling for “decisive measures” to correct French imbalances, Paris is still under the "preventive arm" of the EU budgetary surveillance procedure. It will therefore not be possible to switch to the corrective arm when the Commission reconsiders its recommendations in June.

Sexual equality will not be created by quotas, but by changing our culture, and allowing competent and confident women to move up the career ladder. It's about pipelines, said Baroness Lucy Neville Rolfe in an interview with EurActiv.

Baroness Lucy Neville Rolfe is a member of the UK House of Lords. She is a former board member of Tesco and is currently President of EuroCommerce. She spoke to EurActiv’s editor-in-chief Daniela Vincenti.

We are approaching the European elections. Right now, 35% of the European Parliament is made up of women. It’s a good number, but it is still not balanced. The current Commission has pushed for quotas on company boards. How do we deliver genuine gender equality?

 Clearly women must be treated equally. I’ve never been a fan of “You’ve got to have 40% of women on boards.” We have seen the results in some places. In Norway, for example, they brought non-executive women to balance the boards and reach the target.

I’ve been passionate about pipelines. Wherever I worked, I’ve always tried to encourage talented young people to come forward and give them experience, even when, like I did myself, you take time off to have kids and sometimes have to get a part-time package.

You need a plan, and you need to concentrate on the pipeline, and you need to work to actually get women into pivotal jobs.

So, I had two careers. First, I was in the civil service for over 15 years. Then I joined Tesco. When I was in the civil service, I had a pivotal job. I worked for the Minister, I led European negotiations, I led legislation in Parliament. The fact that I had kids didn’t stop me from taking the sort of important core business jobs. That, when I went into business, was something I tried to replicate, encouraging people to do the same.

It is about women who want to get through, and put in the hours. I never worked half-time, and I was always flexible. It is also about encouraging women to have confidence, to believe in themselves. Women underestimate their abilities, to be honest. They think they’re not ready, when actually they are ready. Young men have a bit more self-confidence.

For me, it is about thinking intelligently, thinking about pipelines, thinking about the executives as well as just notional numbers of heads. I would apply the same principle to Parliament, and the European Parliament. It’s important to have women in leadership positions, at which Europe is not too bad. We have two or three quite gutsy women Commissioners. Of course, in Germany, we have Chancellor Angela Merkel, a great role model.

Isn’t that the exception? If you look at the European Council family pictures, it is clear that women are underrepresented.

I was talking about the Commission.  I don’t think it’s possible for the EU leaders to do much. It’s up to the individual member states to change the composition of their cabinets. Change starts at home, in your own political family.

Despite years of gender equality legislation, we are far from parity. There is change. But it is pretty insignificant, isn't it?

I think there is some change. You talked yourself about the 33%. That’s a big change, if you look at historical time scales. So that must be good news. But I think you’ve got to have people in the right jobs who can do their jobs well in the public interest. It doesn’t help women to be put in a slot to do work they can’t do. We need to help them do the work that they want.

You are a lawmaker now. Do you think we have the right policies to allow women to take this leadership role?

Clearly there’s been a huge change as a result of equal rights legislation. You can’t be discriminated against in the same way, and that is good. In many member states there’s been good work-life balance legislation. In the UK, our government is bringing a new provision that will allow men to take some of the maternity leave instead of women.

And then the infrastructure side, which is in the remit of member states again, we are pushing for good care for small children, and nursery care in schools. All this requires long-term planning. It’s a bit like building the schools themselves. You've got to build that up slowly.

I think the direction of the policy is pro-women. You’re never going to find it that easy to get to 50-50 women. If you look at sports, you end up with different amounts of skills, and I think, in a way, “Vive la difference.”

Trying to have a 50% quota, you would be doomed to failure. I wouldn’t try to do that. What you’ve got to do is work at the culture, and work at getting the change. You’ve got to work with people. Let’s give this person a chance. Giving them the core business jobs will enable them to get to the top. The best companies do that.

In politics, you do see more women come through. If you’re a woman, you often get more attention and if you’re very junior, that’s actually quite tough. You need to have the time to comfortably develop, so that you can move on.

When I was a very young civil servant, it was very hostile for women. As my working life went on, it got easier. Now I’m in the House of Lords, it’s more men. There are a few women around, and they’re quite confident.

You said in a recent interview that the House of Lords was stuck in the 20th century, and needed to move to the 21st century. Would you say the same for Europe?

I think all political institutions need to embrace the latest trends. In the 14th century they needed to take on the printing press. They need to be digital. The European Parliament is quite interesting because the voting is digital.

But I’ve been struck by working methods. Why can’t we use modern technologies? Why can’t we have an app for each piece of legislation, with all the different things you need to read? Something very basic like that. That sort of transition could make a big difference in Europe. Modern technology allows you to translate documents just by reading. It’s about digital modernisation.

You need a house that has diversity. Having a decent number of women is important.

What I meant is related to the current debate on the repatriation of competences, and your view on where Europe is heading in the 21st century.

I’m pro-EU, otherwise, I wouldn’t be president of EuroCommerce. I think the EU has achieved a lot in terms of peace, stability, the single market....

But I do think politics is important as well. It is right to give people the chance to express their views, so we’re having a referendum, if the Conservatives get the backing.

It seems as though the discourse is getting more populist.

I think that has partly to do with the media. I’ve lived a referendum before. I was working in the ministry of agriculture on food prices. Some of the work I did was important in the campaign, because at the time, prices of sugar, grains all went up, and the EU subsidized food. You have to remember the things the EU has achieved, but there will have to be changes. The free movement of people is a big issue in the UK and other member states.

Sometimes it’s the abuses of the system that should be tackled, rather than changing the policy altogether…

We have to work together at that. The free flow of people in Europe has integrated Europe, and has led to more tolerant generations.

In the UK, our welfare system acts as a magnet. People from other member states come because it’s so generous. It’s a problem. These things don’t help.

Mrs. Thatcher felt that Britain had a very unjust budget settlement and that was changed as a result. Last year, Cameron had quite a good deal on the budget. The EU isn’t increasing its budget. It’s cutting its cloth to very difficult circumstances.

Standing as the president of a European trade association, what direction should Europe take?

Europe should work to be more competitive. With the rise of Asia, and the continuing success of the USA, we have to be able to play our part on the world’s stage. To do that, we have to be competitive. Competitiveness means successful trade rounds.

Ahead of International Women’s day, the EU can only do a mea culpa. Gender equality in the 28-country bloc is far from being the norm, as research and data show women remain far more Cinderella than Superwoman.

“Despite 50 years of policies and actions at European level, member states have not yet managed to overcome gender gaps. Thus there is need for further efforts,” said Virginija Langbakk, director of the European Institute for Gender Equality (EIGE).

A gender equality index published recently by the EIGE shows that women in all walks of life struggle to break through the glass ceiling.

Women’s employment rates remain low, ranging from some 40% to 75%, with the average standing at 75.8% for men and 62.5% for women. Even the gender pay gap stagnates at 16.4% across Europe, meaning women work 59 days for free, until they match the amount earned by men.

Segregation in both the labour market and decision-making has worsened. According to EIGE, women are greatly under-represented in political and economic decision-making, and have scored lower between 2010 and 2013, from 38 to 34, in the context of the crisis.

“If Europe has been promoting gender equality since 1957, a lot still remains to be done. On company boards, in pay, and when it comes to unremunerated housework and pensions, women are still disadvantaged,” insisted Viviane Reding, European Commissioner Vice-President in charge of Justice, Fundamental rights and citizenship.

Reding has pushed through a directive setting a 40% female quota by 2020 on non-executive company boards, where women represent a meagre 17.8% on average. However, the legislative proposal, backed by the European Parliament, is now stuck in the Council of Ministers.

The same is true for another bill on maternity leave, under which the Commission suggested increasing the minimum level of maternity leave in the EU from 14 to 18 weeks, in line with standards developed by the International Labour Organization.

“Further progress is needed if we are to achieve true gender equality. The crisis has also demonstrated how easily the rights that have been acquired can be rolled back. Even a standstill in the gender equality agenda represents a backward step,” said Claudia Menne, from the European Trade Union Confederation (ETUC).

´Too important to be left to men´

Even though women outnumber men when it comes to education, some sectors remain male-dominated. For example, increasing the number of women in new technology has appeared on the agenda, with European Commissioners getting personally involved.

Neelie Kroes, European Commission vice-president in charge of the digital agenda, seemed outraged that only nine in 100 European app developers are female, and that only 19% of ICT managers and entrepreneurs are women (compared to 45% and 54% respectively in other service sectors).

“Tech is too important to be left to men,” she said, launching a campaign to find the role models to encourage young women to pursue careers in ICT.

Attracting more women to tech careers is an economic imperative, according to a study published this week.

If women held digital jobs as frequently as men, the European GDP could be boosted annually by around €9 billion (1.3 times Malta's GDP), reads the study. Organisations which are more inclusive of women in management achieve a 35% higher return on equity, and a 34% better total return to shareholders.

Gender balance in politics

Like business, the lack of gender balance in politics is also striking. Women are underrepresented both in national and regional parliaments. Only 24% of the members in EU national parliaments are women. In government, the situation is not much better. Only 24% of women are ministers with portfolios.

In a report published last year by the European Parliament, MEP Sirpa Pietikäinen urged member states to require national parties to set quotas and apply rank ordering rules to electoral candidates lists for national and EU elections.

So far, pick up has not been widespread. Voluntary party election quotas have only been introduced in 13 EU member states.

“I hope that the next Commission will continue to build on our efforts to boost the decision-making role of women in all walks of life, from politics to sport. But if we want more women in top jobs, we must also recognise that gender equality starts at home and in school,” said Commissioner Androulla Vassilou, who is in charge of education.

“But we also need to give women more positive role models, which is why the Commission must continue to encourage the public."

More than 150 years after European colonial powers abolished slavery, a coalition of Caribbean nations is considering legal action to seek a formal apology and monetary compensation.

Caribbean leaders meeting next week in St. Vincent are expected to study a broad legal outline for the reparations claim prepared by a British law firm.

The subject of reparations has simmered in the Caribbean for many years and opinions are divided. Some see reparations as delayed justice, while others see it as an empty claim and a distraction from modern social problems in Caribbean societies.

Slavery ended throughout the Caribbean in the 1800s in the wake of slave revolts, and left many of the region's plantation economies in tatters.

If the leaders decide to go ahead, a legal complaint will be filed against European states, possibly opening the way for formal negotiations.

The European states targeted are Britain, France, Spain, Portugal, the Netherlands, Norway, Sweden and Denmark.

"Undoubtedly, Britain faces more claims than anyone else because it was the primary slave power and colonial power in the Caribbean," Martyn Day, the British lawyer advising the Caribbean nations, said in an interview. "Britain will be very much at the forefront."

Britain's government is aware of the proposed legal action, its foreign office said.

"Slavery was and is abhorrent. The United Kingdom unreservedly condemns slavery and is committed to eliminating it," a spokesperson said, adding that reparations are not the answer. "Instead, we should concentrate on identifying ways forward with a focus on the shared global challenges that face our countries in the 21st century."

Legal experts say the lawsuit would be a long shot at best.

"There is no legal basis for a claim for reparations," Robert A. Sedler, a professor at Wayne State University Law School, said.

"Slavery was legal at the time, and international law was not a part of the law of the European states. Moreover, a long period of time has passed, and all the victims of slavery are long dead," he added.

Some reparations cases have popped up in the United States over the last decade, but no one has been awarded compensation.

However, if negotiations open "the European nations might decide to apologize for slavery and to provide some financial assistance to the Caribbean nations," Sedler said.

For instance, Caricom could seek to work with the European states to set up museums for Caribbean culture and history, which would entail decisions on financing, Day said.

The legal strategy rests on the fact that the European states targeted by Caricom have all signed the International Convention on the Elimination of All Racial Discrimination, which makes it "a duty to do all in their power to eradicate racial discrimination," said Day.

The Caribbean effort is being led by Ralph Gonsalves, prime minister of St. Vincent and the Grenadines, who has doggedly pursued the issue for the last four years.

Precedent?

When Gonsalves found out last year that London's High Court ordered the British government to pay compensation to survivors of Kenya's Mau Mau uprising, he contacted Day, whose law firm Leigh Day, represented the Mau Mau.

The British government paid £19.9 million ($33 million) to 5,228 survivors of torture during Kenya's 1950s Mau Mau uprising, and formally acknowledged that "Kenyans were subject to torture and other forms of ill treatment and that these abuses took place and that they marred Kenya's progress towards independence."

Gonsalves said slavery so traumatized society in Caribbean countries that they have still not fully recovered.

The reparations claim takes into account what its authors say are slavery-related chronic diseases such as hypertension and Type 2 diabetes, widespread illiteracy, the lack of museums and research centers for Caribbean history, the lack of respect for African culture and identity, continuing psychological effects of centuries of slavery, and the lack of scientific and technical know-how to compete in the global economy.

In December 2013, the Caricom Reparations Commission decided on six factors for the claim: public health, education, cultural institutions, cultural deprivation, psychological trauma, and scientific and technological backwardness.

Estimates vary as to how many were enslaved. According to the Trans-Atlantic Slave Trade Database, the British Caribbean had 2.3 million slaves, the French Caribbean had 1.1 million, the Spanish Americas had 1.3 million and the Dutch Americas had about 445,000.

Slaves labored mainly in sugar and coffee plantations and were forced to work around the clock in the fields during harvest, according to Kathleen Monteith, head of the History and Archeology Department at the University of the West Indies.

The international convention against discrimination says significant attempts should be made to solve matters amicably but if no resolution is reached the Caribbean nations can take their case to the International Court of Justice.

Day hopes to present formal complaints to the European states at the end of June. If a European state were to refuse a Caribbean nation's request for talks on its particular claims, then a formal legal complaint would be made.

"The Western powers will at least give a sympathetic ear," he said. "The knee-jerk reaction will be to say no (but) Western powers will want to be seen as dealing sensitively with this."

The introduction of ceilings for Multilateral Interchange Fees (MIFs) will lead to lower costs for credit and debit card use by both consumers and retailers, according to Pablo Zalba Bidegain. EurActiv Slovakia spoke with the MEP about the proposed legislation.

Your draft report initially took a harder line on the European Commission proposal. How do you perceive the outcome of the ECON Committee vote?

I think it is a good result. With this report, we sent a clear message to citizens that this regulation is going to increase the transparency of credit and debit card payment. Thanks to this, I firmly believe that consumers will pay less when using their credit and debit cards. It is an important outcome, coming at time when people feel overlooked by European institutions, when we are close to the election. The outcome of this report is precisely the answer to these concerns.

Critics, especially among banks and card companies, say that a strict ceiling on MIFs is not based on any clear data or methodology. What's your reaction?

During the debate we had before the vote, many members of the Committee, including myself, demanded further reporting and detailed analysis of the impact that these caps are going to have in the payment process. Last week [the week of vote], the Commission published a new report which, in my opinion, explained how to answer these concerns.

Are there any lessons learned from the Spanish case, where MIFs have already been capped, with some claiming it translated into higher costs for consumers?

There are no proper analyses that prove a direct link between the caps and increase of credit card costs. Having said this, I think that if that was the case, we achieved one of the priorities that we follow in this report, which was to increase transparency. Consumers know that they pay 0.3 or 0.2% for every transaction, depending on whether they are paying with a credit or debit card. In the worst case scenario, at least we increased transparency.

Retailers also fear new regulation, because of the “Honour all cards rule.” What is the projected benefit of this move?

Retailers have to pay a huge amount of money for accepting payment by credit cards. Under this proposal, retailers have a chance to reject cards that incur excessive costs. This may create uncertainty. But, in the end, it can give retailers more incentives to accept the rest of the cards, because they will know how much they are going to pay. They can adapt to these costs, probably be more competitive, and offer lower prices to consumers.

What is the timeframe of this proposal? There are rumours that it could be passed to the new Parliament after the May elections.

It appears that the Greek presidency does not prioritise this regulation. In my opinion we have enough time to get it ready before the end of this term. But, as usual, it is not only up to the Parliament to decide, but also up to the Council, whether it is going to be passed during this term, or the next. I would like to finish it during this term, because it is a clear signal to citizens in an elections context that we need to prove that Europe works, and Europe works in a proper direction.

In a telephone conversation with US President Barack Obama, his Russian counterpart Vladimir Putin pleaded that Russian-US relations should not be sacrificed by “disagreements on individual issues”, such as Moscow's de facto annexation of Ukraine’s Crimean peninsula.

In a one-hour call during the night of 6 to 7 March, Obama urged Putin to accept the terms of a potential diplomatic solution to the crisis, which has triggered the worst crisis in US-Russian relations since the end of the Cold War.

As EU leaders did at their summit yesterday (6 March), Obama called for direct talks between Ukraine and Russia “facilitated by the international community” and the participation of international monitors who could ensure that the rights of all Ukrainians are protected, including ethnic Russians.

“Russian forces would return to their bases; and the international community would work together to support the Ukrainian people as they prepare for elections in May”, a readout of the conversation published on the website of the White House says.

The Kremlin website, however, publishes a different reading of the conversation. Accordingly, Putin says that the current Ukrainian government, “which came to power as the result of an unconstitutional coup and was not supported by a nationwide mandate”, was “imposing entirely illegitimate decisions onto Crimea and the eastern and southeastern regions of Ukraine”.

In fact, the Ukrainian authorities have lost control of the Crimea peninsula, where Russian troops without national identification on their uniforms have seized control of the institutions and where a government was elected in a parody of democracy.

Russia and the West disagree on the legitimacy of the Ukrainian government led by Prime Minister Arseny Yatsnyuk. The Ukrainian politician was received as a full partner at the EU summit held yesterday, where he said his government had been approved with constitutional majority by parliament, with 371 votes, more than a 82% majority, including votes by the Party of the Regions of former President Yanukovich.

“Russia cannot ignore calls for help on this matter and is responding accordingly, in full compliance with international law”, the Kremlin press release says.

But according to a US State Department “fact sheet”, outside of the Russian press and Russian state television, there are no credible reports of any ethnic Russians being under threat.

According to the Russian press release, Putin “stressed the paramount importance of Russian-US relations for ensuring stability and security in the world”.

“These relations should not be sacrificed due to disagreements on individual international issues, even if they are very significant”, the Kremlin states.

A possible reading of the statement is remiscent of 'Realpolitik' as it seems to advice the West to accept the Russian's de facto annexation of the Crimea peninsula, which hosts the only Russia naval base in southern seas.

“Realpolitik” is a term from the 19th century referring to states making major decisions based primarily on power, rather than moral or legalistic principles. The policy of Realpolitik was revived in the 20th century by the then US State Secretary Henry Kissinger.

Kissinger in fact published on 5 March a much-noticed article titled “How the Ukraine crisis ends”, in which he proposes a solution whereby Ukraine commits not to join NATO, while Russia accepts Ukraine’s sovereignty over Crimea and receives stronger guarantees about the status of its Black sea fleet at Sevastopol. 

In its latest macro-economic survey, the European Commission again pointed the finger at Germany's high export surplus. Serious imbalances were also detected in Italy and France, EurActiv.de reports.

Significant economic imbalances exist in 14 EU member states, according to the Commission's latest in-depth review of macroeconomic imbalances, presented on Wednesday (5 March).

“Our analysis presented today shows that Member States are making progress in addressing their economic challenges. But this progress is uneven and in some cases must be stepped up,” Commissioner of Economic and Monetary Affairs Olli Rehn outlined in a statement.

The report echoes previous warnings from the José Manuel Barroso, the Commission President, who urged Germany last November to do more to address economic imbalances in the eurozone by opening up its services market and allowing wages to rise at a faster pace.

>> Read: Barroso urges Germany to act on euro imbalances

'Every EU member state should be as competitive as Germany'

Due to Germany's high account surplus, the Commission sees room for improvement. The Federal Republic currently boasts an export surplus of roughly €200 billion, the world's biggest in 2013.

The fact that Germany exports much more than it imports "reflects strong competitiveness," the Commission report says, but "it is also a sign that domestic growth has remained subdued and economic resources may not have been allocated efficiently," it points out.

Seeking better balance, Rehn also emphasised the significant role played by big EU member states like Germany in propelling Europe's growth. In southern European crisis states, whose development is traced separately, economic recovery and budgetary consolidation is progressing.

The Commission is not criticising Germany for having strong export performance and high competitiveness, Rehn told the press in Brussels. On the contrary, he said that he hoped every member state of the European Union would become as competitive as Germany.

In Germany's case, the Commission's main focus is on low domestic investment and strengthening domestic demand. According to Rehn, there are three key areas which must be tackled to strengthen domestic demand: investment, services and child day-care.

German government says trade imbalances harm eurozone stability

MEP Werner Langen from Germany's Christian Democratic Union (CDU) praised Commissioner Rehn for not blowing on the "horn of left-wing EU politicians". The latter, he said, constantly criticise Germany's export strength as a cause for lacking competitiveness in weaker eurozone states. 

Critics complain that high export surpluses in Germany's economy have detrimental effects on other countries, where debt rises as a result. For example, during the euro zone debt crisis, the United States, urged Germany to do more to raise domestic consumption and address the problem.

German officials rebuffed those claims, arguing that the country's high trade surplus was a natural byproduct of the strong competitiveness of German businesses.

That may be changing as the German government now seems to be more open-minded. For the first time, an internal paper from the economics ministry acknowledges that excessive and sustained trade imbalances are harmful for the stability of the eurozone, the Süddeutsche Zeitung reported on Wednesday. As a result, it is right for the Commission to put such imbalances under the microscope, the document said.

Imbalances across the EU

The Commission also noted excessive imbalances in Croatia, Slovenia and Italy, with the latter suffering from an unsustainably high level of public debt and weak competitiveness. Lesser imbalances were observed in countries like France and Italy, who were both advised to "address bottlenecks to medium-term growth while working on structural reforms and fiscal consolidation".

Spain, on the other hand, has seen considerable improvements over the past year, the Commission report pointed out. Although imbalances are shrinking, the analysis shows that Spain must continue with "orderly deleveraging and structural transformation of the economy".

In-depth reviews were considered necessary for Denmark, Luxembourg and Malta, but their results showed no economic imbalances. Greece, Cyprus, Portugal and Romania are not subject to the MIP because they are already under EU surveillance through their respective economic adjustment programmes.

All member states, including the German government, must prepare a response to the Commission review by April 2014. 

Presenting its programme on Roma inclusion, Hungary asked the European Commission to be more responsive to national circumstances regarding minorities, while EU officials called for legally-binding integration measures.

Invited to speak at the plenary session of the European Economic and Social Committee (EESC), the Hungarian minister for human resources, Zoltán Balog, presented Budapest’s Roma inclusion programme to a European audience.

The minister took the opportunity to criticise what he described as the “lack of responsiveness and flexibility” of the European Commission on national Roma strategies.

The Hungarian official stressed that there cannot be one uniform Roma strategy for all EU countries, and that the EU executive needs to be “more responsive” to the changes demanded by member states.

“We need objective indicators, but different strategies according to the country’s specificity,” he said.

Balog explained that it took the European Commission five years to accept that Hungary needed to adapt its policies to the specific situations of Roma populations in different member states. He stressed in particular the structural differences between Eastern and Western Europe’s Romani.

While Western Roma people live mainly in big urban peripheries, over 60% of Eastern Roma groups live in rural areas and policies need to be targeted accordingly, Balog explained.

The Hungarian minister also called for the Commission to be less “polite” on the issue. “The European Commission does not want to name and shame, but that does not help us,” he said.

Balog insisted that while Roma issues need to be dealt with at national level, it is a European responsibility, adding that they are “the most vulnerable group, especially in times of economic crisis.”

His opinion was shared by his host, the president of the EESC, French politician Henri Malosse, who called for binding rules on Roma inclusion strategies.

Malosse criticised the lack of impact of the measures proposed by the Commission due to the “lack of commitment of member states". For the EESC president, the measures are “toothless” if they are not legally-binding.

The European Economic and Social Committee called on the Council “to use its power to adopt legally binding acts in order to alleviate the hardship and immense poverty that threaten the lives of Roma,” according to a statement issued by the EESC.

Hungary 'praised' for its Roma strategy

The Roma are the biggest minority in Europe, and most of them live below the poverty line. In Hungary, they represent around 7% of the population, the minister said.

To tackle the issue, the Hungarian government put in place a secretary of state dealing exclusively with Roma issues and introduced a provision in the otherwise controversial new Hungarian constitution which foresees political representation for all ethnic minorities in parliament.

Social and economic measures of different kinds have also been taken, such as mandatory kindergarten as of 3 years of age, except for children from middle-class families where the mother has only one child, a measure expected to help meet the educational challenge Roma people face.

Budapest has also decided that as of 2015, no parentless child under 12 years of age should live in care centres, and will be given to adoption or fostering.

The government is also organising training schemes in sectors such as masonry, forestry and construction aimed at giving Roma the necessary skills to find a job on the market. Around 1,000 women will be trained to become social workers, the minister told the audience.

A new school curriculum has also been introduced for Hungarian pupils, through which children will learn about Romani culture and history.

However, punitive measures are also foreseen, by cutting families off benefits if children do not attend school.

Balog, said his aim was not to “gloss over the reality” and insisted that Roma “should not be treated as victims”. They “need to take responsibility for their own lives,” the minister stressed.

The presentation of the Hungarian Roma strategy was met with great enthusiasm by the head of the EESC who said he was “very impressed” when he visited Hungary, where pupils have knowledge about the Roma culture.

He also called the critical coverage of events in Hungary “disinformation”.

Reality not as rosy

The situation on the ground however is “not as rosy”, MEP Kinga Göncz from the Hungarian Socialist opposition told EurActiv.

She criticised the government’s “shiny” statistics, obtained by enrolling people in mandatory programmes or courses as the only way to get social benefits.

“It’s a tragedy, people are forced to stay in a room doing some monkey business like connecting dots even if they have a university degree […] it violates human dignity,” she said. On the same note, Göncz said that depriving families of their benefits if their children do not attend classes was “not good”.

“What they could do is create a different school climate in which kids and parents can build trust and feel welcome, rather than punish them, it creates a worse situation,” she deplored.

For the MEP, the Hungarian government has created an atmosphere of “fear and punishment”. 

“There is an attitude of repression towards the homeless, the early retired, the Roma, etc”, in which they are “forced” to do what they are told, Göncz stated.

Even though she conceded that the situation with the Roma in Hungary has improved to some extent, Göncz does not give credit to the government for it. She explains that the previous government was the one who put an end to school segregation of Roma children by “taking them out of special schools”.

She also stressed that before the collapse of communism, the Roma population enjoyed full employment, albeit in the lower strata of Hungarian society. 

A bid to limit dangerous Nitrogen Oxide (Nox) emissions from new ships is in danger of being delayed until 2021, because of pressure from Russia that may be felt in a meeting of EU diplomats today (7 March). 

Pollution from international shipping is estimated to be responsible for more than  50,000 premature deaths in Europe alone and, by 2020, maritime Nox emissions are expected to equal or overtake those from land-based sources.  

Because they take place close to shore, such emissions can have a disproportionately damaging effect on human health.  

But last year, Russia called for a five-year delay to a deal cut at the International Maritime Organization (IMO) in 2008 which would have strictly limited such emissions. Moscow has given no indication that it would support a future curb on Nox emissions in 2021.

Despite this, a proposal by non-EU member Norway to postpone implementation of the new IMO standard outside of North America, in line with Moscow’s wishes, has gathered support from several EU member states, and from sections of industry.

In response, the European Commission has attempted to assert competence over the issue, at a time when Russian pressure on Europe is under the spotlight, as rarely before.   

"It is inconceivable that Europe could even consider legitimising Moscow's attempt to torpedo international rules unanimously agreed 6 years ago,” Bill Hemmings, the shipping manager at Transport and Environment, a green campaign group told EurActiv. “Europe needs to stand firm and resist Russian manoeuvres to block measures to reduce harmful emissions from ships."

The European Commission’s memo to diplomats says that environmental protection “is in very large measure regulated by Union legislation” such as the Clean Air Quality package, and Water Framework Directive. EU states in the IMO should thus take a common position to oppose what they see as a Russian-backed boondoggle.

Baltic fear and loathing

But several European countries are loathe to support this position. Baltic states in close proximity to Russia such as Estonia, Finland, Sweden and Denmark are thought to favour stalling any IMO-backed NOx Emission Control Area (Neca) in the Baltic Sea. Gas supplies and the presence of ethnic Russian minorities in some of these countries can be a potent bargaining chip.

EU member states collectively own the world’s largest merchant fleet and the CO2, NOx, Sulphur dioxide (SO2) and particulate matter (PM) emitted by ships in European waters contribute up to 10-20% of overall shipping emissions, and 30% of CO2 emissions.  

Globally, the world’s shipping industry emits around one billion tonnes of greenhouse gases a year and accounts for around 3% of total emissions. Without action to curb emissions, this figure is expected to double by 2050.

But countries with shipping interests – such as Cyprus, Greece, Latvia, Malta and Poland have supported the Norwegian compromise at the IMO. 

Subsidiarity concerns

Others countries fear gifting Brussels the power to sue any state which breaks ranks. But without that, it would be “every man for himself,” one observer commented.

Some countries have raised concerns about the possible precedent for subsidiarity that could be set in other areas, if the Commission were to assert competency in this area. “We reject the idea that the Commission can issue these proposals so we’re not voting on this issue and we’ll never vote on this kind of decision,” one diplomat told EurActiv.

Greek presidency sources also say that they will reject any attempt to debate the Commission memo, although they say they are aware that the Ukraine crisis could still influence proceedings. Last year, Russian pressure successfully scuppered plans for a Marine Protection Area in the Antarctic Sea.

An inability to take a decision will see the issue kicked back to an IMO coordination meeting in a few weeks’ time.

Ukraine may apply to become a member of the European Union, the centre-right European People's Party (EPP) is set to declare on Friday (7 March), according to a draft statement underscoring the determination of key European capitals to back the country trying to fend off Russian intervention.

The statement was drafted shortly before Ukrainian politician Yulia Tymoshenko briefed a group of conservative leaders including German chancellor Angela Merkel, Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk and Spanish Prime Minister Mariano Rajoy about the crisis in her country.

If issued without change, it would send a strong signal of defiance at Russia's intervention in Ukraine, said one person familiar with its preparation. Another emphasised, however, that the issue remained 'delicate'.

"To say this at this moment in time, when the country is under threat of being annexed, shows that the place for Ukraine is in the West and not in Russia. Although not legally new, it is symbolically strong," said one person familiar with EPP thinking, who asked not to be named.

The EPP is the strongest family in European politics. It is the biggest single group with a dozen heads of state and government in 28-member bloc and the largest number of lawmakers in the European Parliament.

In the statement seen by Reuters, entitled an emergency resolution on Ukraine, the EPP said the law that envisaged countries joining the European Union "refers to all European states, including Ukraine, which has a European perspective, and may apply to become a member of the Union."

Earlier on Thursday (6 March), EU leaders agreed to suspend visa and investment talks with Russia in reaction to its seizure of Ukraine's Crimean Peninsula, and said they would freeze Russian assets and withdraw from a G8 summit if Moscow does not reverse course.

The action was more far-reaching than expected, spurred in part by a decision of the parliament in Crimea, which has an ethnic Russian majority and has effectively been seized by Russian forces, to join Russia.

Speaking in Dublin at the meeting of EPP members, Tymoshenko called for Europe to take strong action over Crimea's attempt to join Russia, warning that otherwise Moscow would attempt to take over the rest of Ukraine.

Tymoshenko, twice Ukrainian prime minister and one of the favourites to become its next president, said Ukraine was too weak to stand up to Moscow alone.

Speaking two weeks after she was released from prison following the collapse of the government of former President Viktor Yanukovich, she also said Ukraine still hoped to sign an association agreement with the EU.

"I very much hope that before or after the presidential elections (on May 25) we will sign an association agreement with the European Union," she said.

Pro-Russian Yanukovich was toppled in February after three months of protests triggered by his refusal to sign the association agreement with the EU in November.

As the EU institutions found a fragile compromise on the emissions trading scheme for aviation, the EU commissioner in charge of transport said the EU executive was still “committed to the ETS” and put the blame on member states for its failure.

After the European Union’s institutions reached a preliminary agreement on the highly-sensitive aviation emissions trading scheme (ETS) on Wednesday (5 March), the EU commissioner in charge of transport, Siim Kallas, admitted that the EU had bowed to international pressure.

Speaking at an event organised by the European Policy Centre and US plane-maker Boeing on aviation in Europe, Kallas called the talks “a nightmare”.

“Two years ago in Singapore I was attacked by the world’s aviation when I defended it [the ETS]. The European ETS is a great concept but the problem is [the risk of] a trade war,” the commissioner told the audience.

Kallas talked about “counter-measures” introduced by third countries, such as the United State’s bill prohibiting US airlines from participating in the European programme, and mentioned threats from third countries that could have led to a “trade war.” He did not mention that the European Court of Justice ruled in 2011 that the EU scheme was valid and did not infringe international law.

The Commission, he said, “is still committed to the ETS ideology” but put the blame on EU member states for the failure to enforce it. “We could do it only if we have a strong front of member states,” he said.

The transport commissioner’s remarks were labelled “rather condescending to his colleagues in the College” by the green NGO Transport and Environment (T&E). “The ETS is the first step to reduce aviation's runaway emissions," T&E director Jos Dings told EurActiv in emailed comments. "As Connie Hedegaard [the EU climate commissioner] would not get away with dubbing the Trans-European Transport Networks an ideology, Kallas shouldn't get away with calling the ETS an ideology."

Trilogue agreement

The EU has been struggling with its carbon emissions plan for years. Under international pressure, the Union “stopped the clock” on the ETS in 2012 to give the UN’s civil aviation body (ICAO) the time to come up with an efficient global market-based mechanism that would be accepted as an international compromise.

Under “stop-the-clock”, only intra-European flights are covered by the scheme, but not long-haul ones.

Following the ICAO fiasco, the EU executive put forward a new legislative proposal on which the EU's three main law-making institutions (the Commission, Council and Parliament) reached a deal on 5 March in the framework of so-called “trilogue” talks.

>> Read also: MEPs defy EU states on aviation emissions law

The compromise text strengthens both the Commission’s initial proposal and the EU member states’ position by limiting “stop the clock” until the next ICAO assembly in 2016 only, thereby forcing it to come up with an environmentally acceptable deal at global level, since EU legislation will return to its full scope after the deadline, covering all flights departing from or landing on the EU’s territory.

One of the EU Parliament’s rapporteurs on the issue, German MEP Pieter Liese, told the press that the Parliament’s negotiators also “improved the wording on what kind of global deal we expect”, referring to comments in ICAO that the global deal would go for a “carbon-neutral growth” solution. Instead, the EU agreement clearly states emissions reduction is expected from the UN in 2016.

Other improvements obtained by Parliament in the deal include stronger pressure from the executive over member states to enforce the legislation.

Liese explained that “we cannot accept to reduce the scope and then not have even this reduced scope enforced”.

Last but not least, the rapporteur insisted from the beginning of the process on obtaining legal provisions pertaining to the spending of revenues from ETS allowance auctions.

“In the new legislation […] member states will have to report on how [the money] is spent,” he said, adding that the “money should be spent on climate change purposes such as research and development for clean aircrafts and clean transport.”

Tight calendar

MEPs will vote on the compromise first in the environment committee and then in plenary session in April. But it’s far from a done deal, the rapporteur warned, urging his colleagues to approve it.

“Some say it’s too weak, others say it’s too strong,” he told the press.

Matthias Groote, chairman of the Parliament's environment committee, said there was a “50-50” chance for adoption and that it was “not certain that the trilogue deal will get through”. Liese was slightly more optimistic “but not sure”, saying he thought it would be able to convince the members of his political group, the centre-right European People's Party (EPP).

The MEPs stressed that if there was no agreement by April, the previous legislation would automatically go back into force.

EU-mandated spending cuts in the Greek healthcare system has brought the country decades back into time, with the new-born death rate jumping by 43% since the begining of the crisis, according to Jorgo Chatzimarkakis, a liberal MEP from the German FDP party.

The austerity policies, ordered by Greece's Troika of international creditors, have worsened the socio-economic situation in Greece to a level not seen since the Second World War, Chatzimarkakis said.

The new-born death rate rose by 43% since austerity measures were implemented, he underlined.

Speaking at the European Parliament in Brussels on Wednesday (5 March) Chatzimarkakis, who is of Greek descent, said that what the EU allows the Troika to do in Greece goes against fundamental human rights.

"There are a lot of legal studies that tell us that the legal security of human rights, basic civil rights, are not given anymore. Mrs Merkel and Mr Barroso present to us another Greece, and not the real Greece,” the MEP said.

He added that the austerity policy was unlikely to change at the moment because the European People's Party (EPP) was trailing behind the Socialists in the Parliament election polls.

“That possibly explains why austerity has to go on from the perspective of the politicians, but it’s not understandable given the dramatic facts," Chatzimarkakis stated.

Next week in Strasbourg, the Parliament will vote on two reports, regarding the troika policy. One report has looked at the economic issues, and the other one is on the societal aspects.

In an recent report published by one of the leading medical journals, The Lancet, academics from the universities of Oxford and Cambridge and the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine said that the Greek government was wrong when it claimed that public spending cuts have not damaged health.

Breaking hearts

Alexander Kentikelenis, a sociologist at King's College, added that Greece had cut its health budget to 6% of GDP, meaning that it was now lower than any member state that had joined since 2004.

Since the crisis, the country has cut health programmes for vulnerable groups, for example drug use prevention programmes, which has caused a rise in HIV infections. Furthermore, the cuts have created long waiting lists, huge staff work loads and a rising number of uninsured people.

Greece is now also relying on volunteer doctors from human rights groups to work ad hoc, Kentikelenis said.

Kostas Nikolarakis from the Panhellenic Medical Committee in Greece said that hospitals did not function properly anymore, with the biggest problems seen in the largest Greek cities.

"Europe's heart beats in Brussels. 3,000 kilometres away though, the heart of the Greek citizens is breaking," Nikolarakis said. "We didn't come here to ask for mercy, but to show that this is not just a problem of health, but a humanitarian and social problem and this is how it should be looked at. We want a social Europe for the people."

Chatzimarkakis said that he wanted to take the issue of the Greek healthcare problems to the Ombudsman and the Council of Europe as fundamental rights are no longer protected in a member state of the EU.

The European People’s Party (EPP) paid tribute to its former president, the late Wilfried Martens, at its party congress in Dublin yesterday (6 March). Praising his legacy, the party announced it would rename its foundation the ‘Wilfried Martens Centre for European Studies’.

The EPP unveiled the new name for its political foundation in Dublin on Thursday (6 March). The Centre for European Studies (CES) is renamed Wilfried Martens Centre for European Studies, or ‘Martens Centre’.

The party also unveiled the centre's new logo, integrating the letter ‘M’, and changing its motto to “The legacy lives on”. Since Thursday, the centre’s website can also be accessed via martenscentre.eu.

Wilfried Martens was one of Belgium’s most renowned politicians and a frontman for the Christian Democrats in Europe since he co-founded the EPP in 1976. He led nine Belgian coalition governments between 1979 and 1992, furthering the reform of Belgium into a federal state and tackling the 1981-1982 economic crisis by introducing reforms and devaluation.

“Wilfried Martens created the whole structure of the CES – now Martens Centre,” Tomi Huhtanen, director of the Centre, told EurActiv. “Values like the social market economy and many fields that we research came directly from his inspiration.”

“He was the founding father of our foundation,” says the head of communications, José Luis Fontalba. “We felt we had to pay tribute to him and the inspiration he brought. When he passed away, we felt the political loss within CES, but also a human grievance: Martens was very involved in the work of the centre, almost like a father overlooking carefully our work.”

The political foundation was established in 2007. It serves as a think-tank and policy study centre for the party and is also involved in drafting the party’s common manifesto for the election campaign.

Several key politicians of the political family also praised the former president in their speeches in Thursday's plenary meeting. “We have to build on the legacy that Martens left for us,” EPP secretary general and MEP Antonio López-Istúriz White told the delegates.

On Friday, the party grants a post-mortem 'EPP Merit Award' to Martens. The award will be accepted by his widow, Miet Smet, a member of the Belgian christian-democrat party CD&V and Martens' third wife.

Party members also confirmed Joseph Daul as Wilfried Martens’ successor, in a plenary vote at the congress on Thursday (6 March). Daul, who took on the role of interim president after Martens’ death, was confirmed by 512 ‘yes’ votes versus 44 ‘no’ votes. The French politician thanked the delegates, saying he “will try not to disappoint you”.

Martens, a former Belgian prime minister, co-founded the EPP party in 1976 and served as its president from 1990 to 2013. He died last October, at the age of 77, after deteriorating health issues.

>>Read: Long-serving EPP President Wilfried Martens dies at 77

At the time of his death, EU political figures expressed their mourning, calling him one of Europe’s great leaders.

Policymakers are going to need to take advantage of the full range of possibilities if they are going to meet the food security challenge. But encouraging people to domesticate local plant varieties is both simple and cost-effective, argues agroforestry expert Patrick Worms.

Patrick Worms is the Brussels-based Science Policy Adviser of the Nairobi-based World Agroforestry Centre. He spoke by telephone to EurActiv's Marc Hall.

The European Academies Science Advisory Council and the Network of African Science Academies recently joined forces in calling for more biotechnology in African agriculture. Do you agree and, if so, how do you think the continent should go about investing in biotechnology?

Ensuring food security for the 10 or 11 billion people that will soon live on a planet buffeted by climate change is a challenge which no single technological breakthrough will be able to meet on its own. We’re going to need everything. We’re going to need biotechnology; we’re going to need agro-ecology; we’re going to need agro-forestry; we’re going to need fertilisers and irrigations and tractors and whatever science human ingenuity can throw at the problem. We need all of it and any step that is taken to push that agenda forward is to be welcomed.

There are a number of different technologies or ways of operating, which can have benefits depending on the needs. That’s one of the things they [EASAC and NASAC] were saying, that scientists in Africa were developing solutions for local needs, such as crops with improved vitamin content…

Well in that case, I would be more cautious in the way that I express myself, and I would do that out of solid scientific principles. Literally thousands of plants have been recorded around the world as being eaten by humans. A very very small minority of those make up the overwhelming majority of crops. These crops, on which we all depend - maize, wheat, rice, that sort of thing - have already been engineered by farmers for thousands of years. They are very, very different from their wild ancestors, and have very narrow genetic variety left. It’s really hard to improve them further with traditional breeding. That’s why genetic modification is so tempting with them.

It is possible to do that, and it may be necessary to do that. But if we focus too much of our scientific and financial resources on that approach, we leave a much more effective solution on the table: doing the basic work of domesticating these hundreds of species that could be very valuable in ensuring food security and that are currently only harvested from the wild. Most of those are totally unknown outside of the area where they are consumed.

But some your readers will have heard about. Think of the baobab, that iconic tree of Africa. Its fruit and its leaves have nutritional profiles, in terms of their micronutrient and vitamin content, that put avocados or oranges to shame. In season, baobab fruit sellers are a common sight along African roads, so it is popular. And yet it has not been domesticated. It’s not being cultivated.

There are hundreds of examples like that. And the thing that fills me with hope is that when you are dealing with such a wild species, the genetic variability is much higher than it is with crops. That means it’s much cheaper and much easier to breed high-performing varieties than it is when you start with something like maize, which has already been engineered to within an inch of perfection.

… using different breeding techniques over generations?

That’s right. If I’m in Cameroon and I want to domesticate safou  - imagine a small, electric-blue mango - all I have to do is go into a village and look at the 20 different wild safou trees out there, pick the best one, and multiply that by taking and growing cuttings. And boom, I’ve easily achieved a much higher improvement in the profile of that village’s food sources than I could ever have done by applying the most advanced and most expensive forms of biotechnology to maize.

So that’s another approach, involving agroforestry, your line of work…

Indeed. When we deal with issues like food security, micronutrient deficiencies, economic opportunities, land degradation or climate change in rural areas, we do so at the scale of landscapes. And in almost all landscapes outside the polar regions, trees within farms, trees on fields even, offer economic and environmental services that are astonishing in their breath and scope. We find that by taking that approach, we can usually hit multiple stones with a very limited intervention. Trees are a cheap technology, one that does not depend on fossil fuel inputs. Trees enhance soil quality and take carbon dioxide out of the air. They protect crops from extreme weather and from pests. Their leaves are fodder, their wood is timber and energy, and their fruits are nutrition. If there is any technology we cannot do without as we seek to feed the world, it is agroforestry.

Are you working directly with farmers and communities?

One of the jobs that we do as agro-foresters is to work with local communities to interest them in trees, and to improve the characteristics of the trees that they’re interested in. Take fruit trees. People usually want straightforward things: a tree that produces more fruit that are more resistant to pests, are sweeter, have more juice, or whose kernels are bigger, if you’re interested in the nut of that fruit. What the farmers really want is for a tree to fruit early. Many wild fruit trees need 10 or even 20 years before they carry their first fruits. But if you do a little bit of breeding, a little bit of selection, you can fairly rapidly get varieties that fruit after three or four or five years.

There’s huge untapped potential. I started off this conversation by saying that we need all of the above but there’s also a question of return on investment and the best return on investment you can get right now are these unexploited species. They are just waiting to be exploited and it’s a shame that we’re not doing more in that regard.

It’s also something that puts power in the hands of local communities of course. What we found in the country where we have the most experience of that particular kind of work, Cameroon, is that villages fairly rapidly select individual trees that are best for their given local circumstances. That means that those trees are adapted to their local weather, their local soil but also the local cultural and economic circumstances. And because it’s so easy to domesticate and to breed those trees at the beginning, you don’t need vast amounts of money or hordes of scientists.

You need some basic knowledge that you can give to the farmers, a little bit of technical support - you don’t need a lab in that village, you need a guy who drops by every two weeks - and you can help the farmers achieve huge progress with these very very simple tools.

… One or two modern techniques to add to what they already know. What about techniques for irrigation?

If you think about it, irrigation is crucial, but the problem with irrigation is that it demands capital and  poor African farmers have no capital to start off with. So either you inject capital from the outside, which is what development aid does. That can work, but we all know that the amount of money available for development is not enough to meet the needs of the hundreds of millions of poor farmers around the world. So as the very first step, you need to figure out things that are very cheap in capital.

So, for example, let’s imagine that you have one of these food trees that produces a very sweet fruit in large quantities within three years of being planted but that needs irrigation because it just cannot cope without. It’s a bit fragile. It just cannot cope with extended periods of dry weather. But imagine you have another tree which produces food which is maybe a little less sweet ,and that takes a little bit longer to fruit, but is hardy. That’s the one that farmers will select, because they cannot afford to put in place the irrigation systems. That tree is not the sweetest, but it will make these farmers a bit more successful.

Now later on, when thanks to these first trees they’ve upped their income a little bit and have saved a bit of capital, they can afford to put in irrigation systems. Then of course it makes sense to go that way, and they will.

The whole thing is very dynamic. That’s exhilarating, if you think about it. You’re not going to develop one variety, like the gala apple, which stays the same for decades on end. You’re going to have hundreds of varieties that will blossom across the landscape, each adapted to its particular local circumstances. So at the beginning you’ll have the hardy varietal, later on, as the farming becomes more sophisticated you might have varietals that have other characteristics but that are less hardy. You see, when you think about it, it’s really beautiful, the whole thing moves completely dynamically, and that’s what’s gorgeous about agroforestry and agro-ecological systems! You do not come in with a preconceived idea of what will work in a given landscape. You work with what that given landscape offers you in terms of soil, in terms of water, in terms of weather, and in terms of biodiversity, in order to coax the largest amount of calories and nutrients out of that soil, sustainably.

Will it be enough, on its own, to feed the world? I would not presume to claim that. Let’s remember the scale of the challenge: we need to grow as much food over the next 40 years as we have grown over the past… 8,000 years! And we have to do that on roughly the same amount of land being farmed today, in a context of vast environmental changes. As I stated at the beginning, the only way we can do that is by using all it. We need the efficiencies of modern agriculture, the astonishing shortcuts of biotechnology, and the holistic management of landscapes of agroforestry and other forms of agroecological agriculture. We need to get beyond the confrontational debates that have characterised farming and work with all the tools at our disposal. The challenge is too large to be solved with a single magic bullet, even one has powerful as agroforestry.

At their extraordinary summit held today (6 March), called in response to the escalation of the crisis in Ukraine, EU leaders demanded that Russia immediately withdraw its forces from Crimea, grant access to monitors, and begin negotiations. If it does not comply, Moscow has been threatened with travel bans and an assets freeze, which could also hit Russian President Vladimir Putin.

Following a seven-hour summit which was called “stormy” by the Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk, EU leaders agreed on a tougher than expected warning to Russia, which was presented to the press by Council President Herman Van Rompuy.

During the summit, Crimea's parliament voted to join Russia and decided that a referendum on the status of the Ukrainian peninsula would take place on 16 March. It was announced that state property would be "nationalised", the Russian rouble adopted, and Ukrainian troops treated as occupiers and forced to surrender or leave.

The EU leaders' meeting will also be remembered for the presence of Ukrainian Prime Minister Arseny Yatsenyuk. Never before has an EU summit been attended by the leader of a non-EU country. As Van Rompuy said, this testified to the seriousness of the situation.

“Acts of aggression cannot be without consequences,”Van Rompuy stated. The Council President said that EU leaders considered the decision taken by Crimea’s parliament to hold a referendum as going against the Ukrainian constitution, and was therefore illegal.  EU Leaders strongly condemned Russia's “unprovoked violation of Ukrainian sovereignty and territorial integrity", and called on Russia to immediately withdraw its armed forces and allow immediate access for international monitors.

Van Rompuy insisted that Russia's failure to engage in negotiations would have serious consequences for its relationship with the Union.

Some of the sanctions were adopted were already agreed on at a ministerial level. These included the freezing of the visa facilitation dialogue, putting on hold the talks for establishing a new bilateral agreement, as well as stopping preparations for the June G8 summit in Sochi.

On all these accounts, the Russian Ambassador to the EU Vladimir Chizhov told EurActiv that his country remained basically unimpressed.

‘Additional measures’

In addition, EU leaders warned that in the absence of a start of negotiations between Russia and Ukraine, including through multilateral mechanisms such as OSCE, the EU may decide on additional measures, such as travel bans, asset freezes and the cancellation of the EU-Russia summit. The Commission and the European External Action Service (EEAS) will begin preparatory work on these measures, Van Rompuy said.

“Any further steps by the Russian Federation to destabilise the situation in Ukraine would lead to severe and far reaching consequences for relations between the European Union and its member states, on the one hand, and the Russian Federation, on the other hand, which will include a broad range of economic areas,” the European Council President stated.

Regarding Ukraine, in addition to the assistance package of approximately €11 billion, decided yesterday, EU leaders decided that the political chapters of the EU-Ukraine Association Agreement could be signed soon, before the Ukrainian Presidential elections scheduled on 25 May.

Asked if the travel ban and the asset freeze could also be targeted at Putin, Van Rompuy said he will answer this question “when the appropriate time comes”.

Speaking after the summit, German Chancellor Angela Merkel said that if Russia was to adopt further destablising measures, or was to take military actions of some sort, then the EU’s relationship with this country would have far-reaching consequences, including broad-based economic measures.

“We made it clear that we would be ready to adopt such a measure in a third stage,” Merkel said.

Economic sanctions could be, however, a bitter pill to swallow also for the EU countries. The Russian parliament is reported to be preparing legislation allowing the confiscation of Western assets in Russia, as a response to possible economic sanctions.

Reportedly, EU countries have been divided on how tough the sanctions against Russia should be. The agreement reached however looks pretty tough compared to expectations and raises the question how determined would all EU countries be in case Russia decides to ignore the call to begin talks.

Poland and the Baltic countries are also reported to have raised the issue of “red lines” beyond which the Union needs to act decisively. These red lines are alleged to concern the territory of Eastern and Southern Ukraine, which may be further destabilised by Russia in the shorter term, as well as Moldova and Georgia.

World ‘going crazy’

As Lithuanian President Dalia Grybauskaitė told the press, having occupied Crimea, Russia is trying to redraw the neighbouring states’ borders, and that Moldova, the Baltic States and Poland could be next in the line after Ukraine.

Yatsenyuk gave a press conference at the summit, in which he said that the world was “going crazy” and global security needed an overhaul.

Asked if he thought that “Russia is dangerous” as Grybauskaitė had said, he replied: “I would say, Russia is not friendly, as you probably realised. Having Russian boots on the ground, having Russian tanks is unacceptable in the 21st century. What’s happening to the global security? Are we going crazy? Is it acceptable that in the 21st century, with no legal grounds, with no reason, one country which possesses nuclear weapons just decides to invade another? So probably we need to do something with the global security, to overhaul the entire system? As this is not the end. God knows where is the limit, where are the boundaries.”

The European People’s Party’s campaign is now a two-horse race, with Latvian contender Valdis Dombrovskis announcing he was dropping out Wednesday (5 March). As the EPP’s electoral congress in Dublin gains pace, Jean-Claude Juncker is slated to become its candidate for the EU Commission presidency.

In a surprise move, Valdis Dombrovskis announced on Wednesday evening (5 March) that he was withdrawing from the three-man race to become the centre-right candidate for the European Commission presidency.

“To achieve the best results, the EPP must unite its efforts to support Jean-Claude Juncker's candidacy to [the European Commission] president's post,” Dombrovskis stated on twitter on Thursday morning.

Dombrovskis's defection turns the EPP campaign into a two-horse race between former Luxembourg prime minister Jean-Claude Juncker, and the French EU commissioner Michel Barnier. With the Dombrovskis endorsement, and unofficial backing from German Chancellor Angela Merkel, Juncker now appears firmly in the lead.

But Barnier hasn't given up, and is pursuing an energetic lobbying campaign, according to several participants at the Dublin congress. The French commissioner has the endorsement of his own party, the French UMP, as well as two other parties.

“I was approached by quite a lot of people asking about my choice," said Alojz Peterle, former president of Slovenia and MEP for the Slovene Christian Democrats party (NSi), which endorsed Barnier. "I’m not sure that all delegates are determined already – there is still time to change minds,” he told EurActiv.

“Barnier was the only one who approached my party, and he won our support,” Peterle said, “but I’m mostly pleased that the EPP has two strong candidates.”

Party gets behind process

The idea of having European parties’ put forward candidates for the election was initially resisted, most notably by centre-right political heavyweights like Angela Merkel and Herman Van Rompuy.

But now that the party is on the verge of electing its own candidate, these doubts seem to have faded. German chancellor Merkel endorsed Juncker for the position in February, suggesting she has come to terms with the initiative.

“It is clear: our single candidate is the designate contender for the European Commission presidency,” party president Joseph Daul stressed to party delegates in Dublin. “That is our position, and we’ll communicate this position to the EU heads of states after the elections.

“If the candidates are elected here, and gets elected again by the European Parliament [after the elections], this is in the spirit of the Lisbon Treaty,” Peterle stressed.

Changing plans as EU leaders meet in Brussels

The congress serves as the kick-off of the EPP’s campaign ahead of next May’s European elections. Delegates of the EPP member parties in Dublin will adopt a common manifesto later today at their plenary session. The Ukrainian delegation at the congress includes politicians Yulia Tymoshenko and Vitali Klitschko, who are set to address party members at the plenary this afternoon.

But the congress is on the back burner, as EU heads of state are still in Brussels for an extraordinary European Council meeting to discuss a way out of the Ukraine crisis.

>> Follow the European Council live on our Storify page

Centre-right EU leaders will arrive in Dublin this evening and meet with party leaders to discuss the situation in Ukraine. This includes German chancellor Angela Merkel, and the Irish Taoiseach Enda Kenny, whose Fine Gael party is hosting the congress.

Some have speculated that EU leaders would also force Barnier to pull out of the race for the frontrunner position, leaving Juncker unopposed. But a source told EurActiv that "Barnier was still lobbying for votes until very recently - I don't think he will pull out."

The member parties' delegates cast their ballots on who will be the EPP’s common candidate tomorrow morning. The party is set to unite behind its candidate as the result is announced at 1pm local time.

The party is the last one to select its common candidate and adopt its manifesto. The Socialist PES party held an electoral congress in Rome last week (28 February-1 March); the European Greens gathered in Brussels two weeks ago (21-23 February) and the liberal ALDE has selected Guy Verhofstadt as candidate at their last full-scale meeting on 1 February. 

German Chancellor Angela Merkel last week addressed a joint gathering of the Commons and Lords, with the rare quality of reception usually reserved for important heads of states, followed by a press conference. Before all this, the Tory press built it up: “Merkel to back PM’s bid for a new EU deal” said the Mail, writes Alan Donnelly.

Alan Donnelly is a former leader of the British Labour party in Europe and current chair of South Shields Constituency Labour Party.

This “overspin” unravelled very quickly. The Chancellor restated a comprehensive case for Europe. She outlined that she was dashing hopes of a special offer of a redesigning the EU for the benefit of British Eurosceptics, but would not be saying the opposite, that European partners do not want the UK at all. Of course, it is true that Cameron has not said what he wants, bar vague UKIP-vote-chasing notions.

The speech was full of realism and honesty. Her praise for the British defence of freedom and willingness to forgive was affecting. And with ongoing violence on the edges of Europe in Ukraine, the image she painted of the historic Europe at war seemed as relevant today as ever. There was a restatement of European values that will horrify some Tory MPs: the four freedoms of the single market are not going to be lost, and a Europe without borders is one of the greatest achievements of the union.

The simple problem is that the backbenchers that forced Cameron into promising a referendum (given certain conditions) in his Bloomberg speech, want so much from “renegotiation” that major treaty change would be needed. Cameron and the Tories have now been told bluntly that renegotiation of the treaties is simply not going to happen. It is not on the table for anyone else in the EU. As shadow Minister for Europe Gareth Thomas wrote last week, Merkel cannot save Cameron from his own backbenchers. When she talks of reframing the politics of the union, the rise of the “anti” vote may be foremost in her mind, but everyone knows the only way to deal with the Euro crisis in the long term is more integration, better management.

There is an opportunity for Labour now. In addition to the speech, Merkel was meeting the party leaders separately. Merkel has much more in common with Ed Miliband and Labour than the Tories. Labour and the two main parties in Germany support continuing practical reform of Europe and they recognise that it is a process best achieved by working together, not through misrepresentations and threats — which by the way are having a diminishing impact on our partners and are only serving to frighten current and future investors in Britain.

Ed Miliband must keep the dialogue going with the Chancellor — regardless of her CDU credentials. She would I am sure, rather work with a moderate, practical and pro-European party leader like Ed than with a leader of a party drifting further and further to the right and further and further from the heart of Europe. Let’s draw out the differences between us. Commit to realistic reform and get away from the referendum discussion which obscures the real issues in Europe: jobs and growth. And as I wrote for Progress in December, Labour should focus on reforms that can be made within the current treaty framework. This can be major point of agreement to build on.

In closing she told MPs and Peers that “united and determined, we can defend our economic and social model”. But the Tory Eurosceptics who have the whip-hand right now are not interested at all in a European economic and social model. The government’s recent policy turns have made Labour the best fit for our European partners, whether they be PES or EPP. It’s time to grasp the mantle of true negotiators for Britain in Europe.

Germany's Eurosceptic Alternative for Germany (AfD) party must be fought with facts, says Socialists and Democrat MEP Birgit Sippel. The data protection expert finds the German "no-spy" agreement with the US "ridiculous" and calls for strong, Europe-wide regulation of intelligence services.

Birgit Sippel has been an MEP for the Progressive Alliance of Socialists & Democrats (S&D) since 2009 and is second on the German Social Democratic Party's (SPD) European candidate list. She spoke to EurActiv Germany's Dario Sarmadi. 

At their election congress in Rome, the Party of European Socialists (PES) called on Brussels to restore certain competences to national, regional and community levels. Do you want less Europe?

It is not about giving up competences, but about giving regions and communities more room for manoeuvre.  The issue is not whether there is a directive or not, but how closely it regulates the lives of European citizens.

Can you provide an example?



Take environmental protection: It is not wrong to reduce the energy consumption of vacuum cleaners and light bulbs. But there can be different ways to implement something like this. 

Regarding financial sector reform, or the fight against tax fraud, the picture is different: The Commission must be braver on these issues and push for stricter rules.

The classic communication problem of the EU?



Exactly. The Commission must set areas of communicative focus. On Europe's fundamental issues. On common values of the European citizens. That is what moves people.



Topics like data protection and intelligence services are not even mentioned in the European election manifesto. Why not? Because they do not move people?

At first glance, the topic is hard to grasp. Meanwhile, the right to protect private data is a fundamental one. In my view, people are steadily growing aware of how the infringement of data protection rights is a massive intrusion into their privacy.  



But if data protection is so important, why is it not in the election manifesto?

It was with a heavy, almost bleeding heart, that I accepted the omission of this point. That is simply due to the nature of the election manifesto. If we want to remain visible in the election campaign, we must hone our agenda, and choose certain areas to focus on.

But data protection and control of intelligence services remain important issues for us. We need European rules on this. When companies violate these rules, they must be subject to stronger sanctions than before. States must be put on the pillory.



Does Europe need a no-spy agreement with the US after Germany failed at attaining this?

In Europe, intelligence services are already working together. Still, [EU] member states insist that this control is a purely national matter. What the German government is doing with the no-spy agreement is simply ridiculous. Something like that is just not useful bilaterally.

In the end, this agreement is only about a commitment to avoid spying on politicians. The majority of citizens would not be affected by this. Our intelligence agencies must be under independent and Europe-wide control by politicians and experts who possess the technical know-how.



Martin Schulz is top candidate for the European socialists in the elections, although German politicians are quite unpopular in southern European countries at the moment. Could that be a problem in the upcoming campaign?

We also considered whether or not it is smart to send a German into the race. But it is actually an advantage. In reality, there is no debate between Germany and the southern European states. The actual conflict, so to speak, exists between capital and workers. A Greek employee gets along better with German employees than with Greek employers. Martin Schulz will be able to resolve this social conflict. He embodies a Europe of unity, which serves the people.  



Is it easy for you to conduct an election campaign against the European People's Party? In Germany, the Social Democrats are in a grand coalition with the conservatives.

A coalition is no love marriage. It is an alliance of convenience for four years. We definitely differentiate ourselves from the conservatives in Germany, as well as in Europe. We want more climate protection and more investment in innovation and social protection systems, even in the crisis. We want to take a hard line on tax fraud and introduce a financial transaction tax. We will make these differences clear, by adopting a reasonable tone but being tough on the issues. 
 


Other political opponents are Eurosceptics and right-wing populists, who are likely to gain additional votes. How do you address parties like the Alternative for Germany (AfD)?



Speaking for myself, I would never make the AfD an issue. But I cannot escape addressing their main principles. We are well-advised to conduct a fact-based debate amid all the emotion.

We must also make it clear that the AfD chairman Bernd Lucke is playing the wrong game. [It's not clear] whether he is leading a right-wing populist party, or whether he will cooperate with the National Front and the Northern League after the elections. We will have to pin him down.