20. März 1998

AGENDA 2000: Deutscher Text der EU-Kommissionsvorschläge verfügbar

Themen: Archiv — info @ 16:03

Brüssel, Bonn (agrar.de) – Der Text der EU-Kommissionsvorschläge liegt vor. In einer ersten Stellungnahme kritisierten Bundesregierung und Landwirtschaftministerium die Pläne zur Neuordnung des EU-Agrarmarktes. Für die deutschen Bauern seien Einkommensverluste von bis zu 20 Prozent zu befürchten. Der Text der EU-Kommissionsvorschläge liegt zum Lesen oder Downloaden unter AGRAR Dokumente (http://www.agrar.de/agenda/) bereit.

Wir laden Sie herzlich zur Diskussion der Vorschläge unter AGRAR Diskussion (http://www.agrar.de/diskussion/) ein!

18. März 1998

Agenda 2000: EU-Kommission stellt Gesetzentwürfe vor (englisch)

Themen: Archiv — info @ 14:03

Die Gesetzentnwürfe der EU-Kommission (für die Vollständigkeit keine Gewähr)

Agenda 2000 : the legislative proposals In its Agenda 2000 communication of 16 July 1997 the European Commission set out proposals for the reform of existing European Union policies, the process of Enlargement an the financial framework for the period 2000-2006. The legislative proposals adopted by the Commission today provide the legal texts on which decisions can be taken on the policy reforms proposed in Agenda 2000 and on the new pre-Accession aid instruments. The Commission has also adopted a report on the working of the Interinstitutional Agreement (IIA) on Budget Discipline and its proposal for a new Financial Perspective for the period 2000-2006.

The proposals adopted today fall into four main groups as follows:

– agricultural Regulations – regulations on the Structural and Cohesion Funds – pre-Accession instruments, and – the Financial Perspective for 2000-2006

(together with reports on the operation of the IIA and the loan guarantee Regulation).

– It should also be noted the the Commission adopted today a proposal for a revised Financial Regulation for Trans European Networks, thus adding a further dimension to this package in a priority area. – Still to come in the autumn of 1998 is the Commission’s comprehensive report on the own resources system which will also address the development of relative budgetary positions of the Member States. – Commenting these proposals, Jacques Santer, the President of the European Commission, recalled that :

‚Agenda 2000 is our vision of Europe for the year 2000 and beyond : the future of the Union’s policies, the road towards enlargement, the financial framework‘. He added : ‚The process of enlargement has in the meantime been launched on the basis of what we had proposed‘. Eight months after the presentation of Agenda 2000, the proposals adopted today translate in concrete acts the orientations of last July.

Appealing to the European Parliament and the Council of Ministers, Jacques Santer stated: ‚We will have to work with determinrecalled that : ‚Agenda 2000 is our vision of Europe for the year 2000 – The Common Agricultural Policy The main proposals for new agricultural Regulations cover:

– revised Council Regulations for the common market organisations for cereals, arable crops, beef and milk – a revised Council Regulation on olive oil (which follows the recent proposal on tobacco and will be followed by a proposal on wine before June 1998 – a ‚horizontal‘ Regulation to introduce some common provisions on cross compliance with environmental conditions, modulation of payments linked to the labour force and an element of degressivity in large payments – a revision to the EAGGF Financing Regulation (729/70) – a new Regulation covering rural development measures financed by the EAGGF both from its Guidance Section (in objective 1 areas) and from the Guarantee Section (elsewhere).

All the agricultural proposals are due to come into effect in the year 2000. They represent a further major step in the direction of the reform of the CAP which was started in 1992. As indicated in Agenda 2000, the further reductions in market support prices proposed and the increase in direct payments to farmers are designed to improve the competitiveness of EU agriculture on domestic and world markets thus reducing the risk of a return to the production of expensive and unsaleable surpluses while avoiding over compensation. Part of the reinforced direct payments will take the form of a financial envelope which Member States can distribute, subject to certain criteria, thereby allowing Member States to address their specific priorities. Lower prices will benefit consumers and leave more room for price differentiation in favour of quality products. Greater market orientation will prepare the way for the integration of new Member States and reinforce the EU’s position in the coming WTO Round. Moreover, there will be increased emphasis in the new CAP on food safety and environmental concerns. The EAGGF (European Agricutural Guidance and Guarantee Fund) rural development Regulation will for the first time provide an integrated approach to the development of the countryside.

This comprehensive set of proposals are designed to ensure in a comprehensive, simplified and non bureaucratic manner that the European Model for Agriculture can be sustained in the long term, to the benefit not only of the EU agricultural industry but also for consumers, employment and indeed for the EU’s society as a whole. Intervention prices in the dairy sector, as in the arable and beef sectors, will no longer be subject to annual price fixing but will be fixed for the whole period covered by Agenda 2000.

It can be expected that internal market prices will stay above the intervention level. – Arable crops : The intervention price for cereals will be reduced by 20% in one step in the year 2000 while direct payments will be increased from 54 ECU/tonne to 66 ECU/tonne. Direct payments for oilseeds and non-textile linseed will be set at the same level, thereby eliminating the basic condition for productiondirect payments will be increased from 54 ECU/tonne to 6 To ensure the profitability of protein Crops compared to other arable crops, an additional direct payment of 6.5 ECU/tonne is proposed, bringing the total available for protein crops to 72,5 ECU/tonne. The specific scheme for durum wheat which was modified in 1997 will be continued. While compulsory set-aside will be retained, its compulsory rate will be set at zero. Voluntary set-aside will be maintained with the same level of payment as for cereals and may be guaranteed for 5 years, thus enhancing its positive environmental contribution. Silage maize will continue to be eligible for direct payments as its abolition would involve expensive control mechanisms given that the final use of maize i.e. for grain or silage may depend on weather conditions which cannot be foreseen when applying for the arable crop payment. Compared with the proposal from 1997, the retention of this aid will result in important cost savings for many producers notably those in the dairy and beef sectors and is therefore taken into account in the calculation for the increase in direct aids for these two sectors. – Beef : The effective market support level will be reduced by 30% in three equal steps, starting on 1 July 2000. From 1st July 2002 the present intervention system will be replaced by a private storage regime. To ensure a fair standard of living for the farmers concerned, direct payments will be increased for male bovine animals and suckler cows. A new direct payment for dairy cows will be introduced. Flexibility and targeting will be increased by entitling Member States to allocate part of the increase in direct payments (national envelope) according to specific priorities. The amount of direct support follows the Agenda 2000 proposal but will be sub-divided into a Community-wide basic payment and an additional payment according to national provisions. However, the premium for bulls has to take into account the benefits accruing to producers through the retention of the arable crop payment for silage maize. The basic premiums will be (2002 level) 220 ECU for bulls, 170 ECU for steers, 180 ECU for suckler cows, and 35 ECU for dairy cows. These basic amounts correspond to the pre-reform level of the aid plus 50 % of the increase in the total premium. The remaining 50 % of the increase is distributed to Member States according to their share in production, in order for Member States to distribute these amounts within certain limits and according to common rules. While permitted flexibility, Member States will be responsible for a non-discriminatory implementation. Payments should be allowed per animal and/or per hectareof permanent pasture. For pastureland, a maximum amount per hectare should be approximately equal to the average area payment for arable crops. When account is taken of the resources being provided through the basic premia and the additional payments, the level of premia which could be paid to producers would be : 310 ECU/head (+130%) for bulls paid once in their lifetime, 232 ECU (+ 113%) for steers paid twice in their lifetime, 215 ECU/headadditional payments, the level of premia which could be paid to producers would be : 310 ECU/head (+130%) for bulls paid once in their lifetime, 232 ECU (+ 113%) for steers paid twice in their lifetime, 215 ECU/head (+ 48%) for suckler cows per year and 70 ECU/head (new premium) per year for dairy cows to take account of the impact of the reduction in beef support price on the value of dairy. Regional ceilings for the number of premium rights for male animals will be fixed at 1997/98 levels i.e. 9.095 million. The deseasonalisation premium for steers will continue as at present while the calf processing scheme will be aboslihed. In addition, it seems appropriate to introduce national ceilings to cover all suckler cow premium rights. The overall number of premium rights would therefore be reduced to the level of actual use in a certain reference period (best out of 1995/1996 plus 3% i.e. a total of 10.285 million). The total number of animals qualifying for the special premium and the suckler cow premium will be limited to 2 livestock units (LU) per hectare forage area. Producers with a stocking density less than 1.4 LU per hectare and currently practising extensive production methods (animal grazing on pasture land) may qualify for an additional payment of 100 ECU (+ 178%) per premium granted. Dairy Regime It is proposed to reduce intervention prices for butter and skimmed milk powder by 15% in four steps to improve competitivness on the internal and external markets. While this proposed price decrease goes beyond the Agenda 2000 proposal, it is justified not only by the added benefit in terms of competitiveness but also, in comparison to the Agenda 2000 proposal, by the fact that available milk quotas will be increased and also by the fact that dairy farmers will partially benefit from the retention of a crop premium for silage cereals. Moreover, most farmers can be expected to adapt to their new situation through cost saving measures. The amount of direct support per producer will be based on the number of premium units. This number will be determined by dividing the individual reference quantity by the average milk yield in the Community of 5,800 litres/cow. In order to target support to producers rather than quota holders, temporarily leased quota will be accounted to the producer who has leased it. The amount of direct payment per premium unit follows the Agenda 2000 proposal but will be sub-divided into a basic payment of 100 ECU per premium unit and an additional payment of 45 ECU per unit according to national provisions. The basic cow premium will be phased in gradually in four equal steps in parallel with the reduction in guaranteed prices. Milk quota It is proposed to maintain milk quotas until 31 March 2006. In view of the impact of the 15% price reduction on internal consumption and exports a 2% (2.35 tonnes) increase in the total reference quantity in four steps is proposed. This additional quota should be distributed to particular categories of producers who need particular support, i.e. young farmers and producers in mountain and nordic areas. It is also proposed that in cases of non permanent transfer of quota (leasing etc) member states place a certain percentage of that quota in a national reserve for redistribution. Furthermore member states will have the possibility of transferring to the national reserve the quota from those to whom quota reverts at the end of a leasing contract but who choose neigther to resume production themselves nor to sell their quota. Mediterranean products In relation to products which are primarily produced in Mediterranean regions the Commission has adopted a proposal on olive oil, which follows the recent proposal on tobacco. A proposal on the wine regime will be presented before June. Rural development Rural development measures concern in particular support for structural adjustment of the farming sector (investment in agricultural holdings, establishment of young farmers, training, early retirement), support for farming in less favoured areas, remuneration for agri-environmental activities, support for investments in processing and marketing facilities, for forestry and for measures promoting the adaptation of rural areas insofar as these are related to farming activities and to their conversion. The policy brings together for the first time all the measures related to the development of the countryside which were funded by the EAGGF and is to accompany and complement the proposed reforms in market and price policy. The reformulated policy involves a radical simplification and allows for far greater flexibility and subsidiarity. Current eligibility criteria for support in Less Favoured Areas (LFA) will be modified in order better to integrate environmental goals into rural development policy; the LFA scheme will gradually be transformed into an instrument to maintain and promote low-input farming systems. In addition, targeted agri-environmental measures will be aimed more specifically at achieving the objectives of protecting the environment and maintaining the countryside. Coherence between rural development measures and other instruments of the Common Agricultural Policy or other Community policies will be ensured by specific rules, which will ensure that overlapping between instruments is avoided. Maximum amounts for some measures will prevent any abuse of rural development support, such as unjustified additional market support. Rural development measures will in future be financed by either the Guarantee Section or the Guidance Section of EAGGF according to the regional context. Rural development measures covered by Objective 1 programmes and the rural development Community Initiative will be financed by the Guidance Section of EAGGF. Other rural development measures will fall under the Guarantee Section of EAGGF. These will be the accompanying measures and the LFA scheme in all rural areas as well as measures concerning modernisation and diversification covered by Objective 2 programmes and by rural development programmes outside Objective 1 or 2 regions. Horizontal measures Cross compliance: With respect to integrating better the environment into the CAP, Member States should apply appropriate environmental measures concerning the particular market support schemes. Modulation: The distribution of direct payments among farmers might cause specific problems within certain Member States which call for a subsidiarity approach. However, agricultural income including direct payments has important employment impacts in rural areas. Member States would therefore be authorised to modulate direct payment per farm within certain limits and relative to employment on the farm. Funds made available from aid reductions – either under cross-compliance and/or under modulation – would remain available for the respective Member State as an additional Community support for agri-environmental measures. Ceilings on aid payments: To avoid excessive transfers of public funds to individual farmers, the Commission proposes to introduce a degressive overall ceiling to direct payments. The ceiling applies only to payments under the support schemes once cross-compliance and modulation have been applied and involves a 20% reduction in payments between ECU 100,000 and ECU 200,000 and 25% reduction on amounts above ECU 200,000 Structural Funds and Cohesion Fund The proposals for new Regulations on the Structural and Cohesion Funds will provide the legal framework for support from these funds in the next programming period 2000-2006. The package has been constructed around the three principles enunciated in Agenda 2000, namely concentration, simplification and clarification of reponsibilities. The legal texts proposed are as follows : – a new general Regulation including provisions which apply to all the Funds (this replaces two existing Council Regulations); – new ‚vertical‘ Regulations for each of the four Funds (ERDF, ESF, FIFG and, for EAGGF, the Rural Development Regulation (see above)); – a revised Regulation for the Cohesion Fund. The number one priority will be the EU’s poorest regions, as the effort continues to improve their infrastructure as well as the education and skills of their workforce. In a new approach, the Strucural Funds also cater for all areas undergoing structural difficulties, be they industrial, rural, urban or coastal areas with difficulties in the fishery sector. Under the new proposals a clearer division of responsibilities is called for between the Commission and the Member states to improve and accountability, and hence lead to greater cost-effectiveness. Innovative financial instruments are foreseen such as loan guarantees and risk capital funds to increase the leverage of the Structural Funds. And far more than in the current support period, the Structural Funds will promote sustainable development and environmental protection. Following last November’s Jobs Summit, which agreed how Europe should act to address its employment problems, a key task of structural policy will be to underpin the reform of labour market policies and practices, in line with the Employment Strategy and the annual employment guidelines for Member States. Three objectives for the future For the sake of simplification, the Structural Funds‘ priority Objectives should be reduced from seven to three. All regions in the EU will be reevaluated to determine which of the new objectives they may qualify for in seeking structural Fund support. The new objectives would be : Objective 1: The purpose of the first Objective will be to help those regions most in need, that is those whose level of development (measured on the basis of figures for the last three available years in terms of GDP per head) is less than 75% of the Community average. In the future, these regions will have the same priority they currently enjoy. Although there has been improvement, these regions are still faced with the most serious problems of income, employment, infrastructure, and skills levels in the workforce. Even though these gaps are less now in fields such as telecommunications, eliminating them entirely will be a long-term process given the amount of investment required. The Canary Islands, due to their ultraperipheral status, and the current Obj. 6 regions will also be covered by Objective 1. All four Structural Funds (European Regional Development Fund ERDF- , European Social Fund ESF -, European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund, Guidance Section EAGGF – Financial instrument for fisheries guidance FIFG -) will make a joint effort to assist the development of Objective 1 regions. The current Objective 1 regions that no longer qualify under the 75 % criterion will have their assistance phased out gradually, over a six year period. It is even prolonged to 7 years

17. März 1998

BSE: Weiterhin Exportverbot für nordirisches Rindfleisch

Themen: Archiv — info @ 16:03

Bonn (agrar.de) – Solange die in dieser Woche vom Agrarministerrat beschlossenen Auflagen nicht erfüllt werden, bleibt es bei einem Exportverbot für Rindfleisch aus Irland. Das teilte heute die Bundesregierung mit.

Ein Vorratsbeschluß des Agrarministerrates zur Lockerung des Exportverbotes für irisches Rindfleisch hatte in den vergangenen Tagen für Verwirrung gesorgt. Bonner Angaben zufolge gilt eine Lockerung jedoch nur für Rinder aus Beständen, in denen in den letzten 8 Jahren kein BSE-Fall aufgetreten ist, für Fleisch, das von in Nordirland geborenen, aufgewachsenen und geschlachteten Tieren stammt und eine zusätzliche Kennzeichnung trägt. Jeder Fleischsendung muß eine Genußtauglichkeitsbescheinigung beiliegen, die der amtliche Tierarzt im Herkunftsbetrieb ausstellt. Ferner muß jede Fleischsendung am Bestimmungsort angemeldet, also das zuständige Veterinäramt von einer zu erwartenden Sendung unterrichtet werden.

Bundeslandwirtschaftsminister Jochen Borchert und Bundesgesundheitsminister Horst Seehofer erklärten dazu heute in Bonn: ‚Deutschland hat sich gegen diese Regelung, insbesondere gegen einen Vorratsbeschluß in diesem Bereich ausgesprochen, weil es vor allem noch Zweifel an der Wirksamkeit der Kontrollen gibt. Aufgrund der Vereinbarungen der EU-Regierungschefs von Florenz kann es die Lockerung des Exportverbotes nur dann geben, wenn dies aus wissenschaftlicher Sicht unbedenklich ist und wirksame Kontrollen sichergestellt sind.‘

BSE: Verhindert Anita die Einstufung von Deutschland als BSE-frei ?

Themen: Archiv — info @ 12:03

Brüssel (agrar.de) – Neben Österreich, Spanien, Griechenland, Dänemark Finnland und Schweden hat auch Deutschland in Brüssel die Einstufung als ‚BSE-frei‘ beantragt.

Bescheidet die EU-Kommission die Anträge positiv, wären diese Länder, zumindest bis Ende 1998, vom Verbot sog. Risikomaterialien ausgeschlossen (wir berichteten).

Ob die Bundesrepublik diese Anerkennung erhält, ist derzeit jedoch völlig offen. Grund: Anita, ein Rind, das im vergangenen Jahr in Bayern an BSE erkrankte. Nach einem Gentest gehen die Schweizer Behörden jetzt davon aus, daß Anita nicht, wie bisher angenommen, in der Schweiz, sondern möglicherweise in Deutschland geboren ist.

Bund und Länder beschließen neuen Agrarstrukturplan

Themen: Archiv — info @ 09:03

Bonn (agrar.de) – Der Rahmenplan für die Gemeinschaftsaufgabe von Bund und Ländern ‚Verbesserung der Agrarstruktur und des Küstenschutzes‘ (GAK) ist beschlossene Sache.

Er legt Förderziele und -maßnahmen sowie die Verwendung von rund 2,8 Mrd. DM bis zum Jahre 2001 fest. Danach entfällt der größte Anteil auf die einzelbetriebliche Investitionsförderung (DM 688 Mio. rd. 25%), gefolgt von Ausgleichszulage (DM 654 Mio. rd. 23%) und Küstenschutz (DM 215 Mio., rd. 8%).

Überbetiebliche Ausgaben sind in der Wasserwirtschaft (DM 377 Mio., rd. 13%), Flurbereinigung (DM 242 Mio., rd. 9%) und die Dorferneuerung (DM 205 Mio., rd. 7%) vorgesehen.

Abgeschlagen auf den letzten Plätzen rangieren markt- und standortangepaßte Landbewirtschaftung (DM 108,4 Mio., 4%) und Marktstrukturförderung (DM 98,2 Mio., rd. 3,5%).

Brüssel: Agrar-Umweltprogramme statt Direktzahlungen

Themen: Archiv — info @ 09:03

Brüssel (agrar.de) – Die Mitgliedsstaaten der Europäischen Union sollen ab dem Jahr 2000 Direktzahlungen an die Landwirte kürzen und mit den freiwerdenden Mitteln Agrar-Umweltprogramme fördern zu können. Das geht nach Angaben des Niedersächsischen Landvolkes aus einem Entwurfspapier der Europäischen Kommission hervor.

Die ‚Cross Compliance‘ verpflichte die Mitgliedstaaten künftig zur Definition von Umweltstandards auf Grundlage regionaler bzw. lokaler Rahmenbedingungen sowie vor Ort vorherrschender Produktionsstrukturen. Verstöße könnten mit Kürzung oder Streichung der Beihilfe geahndet werden. Eine solche Umweltbindung gibt es bisher nur bei tiergebundenen Prämien. Dort werden Beihilfen nur für Besatzdichten unter 2 GE/ha gewährt.

Sicher scheint die Einführung einer Degression. Danach will Brüssel bis zu einer Förderhöhe von DM 198.000 Beihilfen zu 100% auszahlen. Über diesem Betrag sinkt die Auszahlung dann um 20% und bei einer Förderungen über DM 396.000 um 25%. Die so freiwerdenden Mitteln sollen dann ebenfalls den Agrar-Umweltprogrammen zugute kommen.

Deutsche Agrarexperten kritisieren die Brüsseler Vorschläge als drastische Verschlechterung der deutschen Zahlungsbilanzposition zum Status-Quo. Insbesondere die ostdeutschen Großbetriebe würden unter einer Kürzung der Direktbeihilfen zu leiden haben.

15. März 1998

Umweltbundesamt: Umweltdelikte 1996 weiter angestiegen

Themen: Archiv — info @ 15:03

Berlin (agrar.de) – Mit 45.611 Umweltstraftaten lag die Umweltkriminalität in Deutschland 1996 10% höher als im Vorjahr. Die Aufklärungsquote sank weiter ab. Das meldet das Umweltbundesamt (UBA) nach Auswertung der Kriminalstatistik 1996.

Mit 73% aller bekanntgewordenen Fälle (28.935) lag demnach 1996 die umweltgefährdende Abfallbeseitigung an der Spitze, gefolgt von Gewässerverunreinigung 17,4% (6.878), Bodenverunreinigung 4,3% (1.698), unerlaubtes Betreiben von Anlagen 3,7% (1.448) und Luftverunreinigung 0,9% (364). Weitere 105 Fälle wurden beim unerlaubten Umgang mit radioaktiven und anderen gefährlichen Stoffen und Gütern, 71 bei schwerer Umweltgefährdung durch Freisetzung von Giften und 63 bei Gefährdung schutzbedürftiger Gebiete bekannt.

Mit 15,6% verzeichneten die Bereiche Umweltnebenstrafrecht, Naturschutz-, Tierschutz-, Jagd-, Pflanzenschutz- und DDT-Gesetz die stärkste Zunahme bekanntgewordener Delikte (5.655).

Experten schätzen allerdings, daß gerade bei Umweltstraftaten die Dunkelziffer sehr hoch ist.

USA: Ländlicher Raum als Arbeitsmarkt von wichtiger Bedeutung

Themen: Archiv — info @ 10:03

Washington (agrar.de) – Das US Landwirtschaftsministerium (USDA) ermittelte, daß der ländliche Arbeitsmarkt von wichtiger Bedeutung für die urbane Wirtschaftslage. Nach einer Untersuchung ‚Rural Labor Markets Often Lead Urban Markets in Recessions and Expansions‘ von Karen S. Hamrick (khamrick@econ.ag.gov) reagiert der Arbeitsmarkt in ländlichen Regionen schneller auf wirtschaftliche Zyklen und zeigt Tendenzen von Rezession und Expansion bereits vor dem städtischen Arbeitsmarkt.

Die Arbeitslosenrate zeige in der Summe etwa dieselben Schwankungen in Stadt und Land, obwohl Aufschwungphasen Teile der Arbeitslosen auf dem Land oft nicht erreichten. Motor für die Einkommen und den ländlichen Arbeitsmarkt könnte nach Ansicht der Untersuchung ‚Industrial Uses of Agricultural Products Such as Crambe Play a Role in Rural Community Development‘ von Jacqueline Salsgiver (jsalsgiv@econ.ag.gov) die wachsende Besorgnisse um die Umwelt werden.

Kritische Verbraucher steigern die Nachfrage nach industrialisierten Agrar-Rohstoffen. Beispiele hierfür sind Pflanzenöle und -treibstoffe, Stärkeprodukte und Verpackungsmaterialien.

Eine weitere Studie (Rural Areas in the New Telecommunications Era) von Peter L. Stenberg (stenberg@econ.ag.gov), Sania +Rahman, M. Bree Perrin, und Erica Johnson betont die Notwendigkeit, den ländlichen Raum bei der Versorgung mit Kommunikationsmedien nicht zu vernachlässigen. Sonst sei ein ’schnelles Zurückfallen‘ gegenüber den städtischen Regionen zu befürchten.

(aus: Rural Development Perspectives Volume 12, Number 3, U.S. of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, Food and Rural Economy Division)

USA: USDA verlängert Anhörung zu Bio-Verordnung

Themen: Archiv — info @ 10:03

Washington (agrar.de) – Am 16. Dezember 1997 veröffentlichte das USDA im Federal Register (62 FR 65849) einen Vorschlag für eine neue, umfassende Bio-Verordnung (http://www.ams.usda.gov/nop).

Die öffentliche Anhörungsphase zum Vorschlag wurde aufgrund zahlreicher Einwände verlängert. Bis zum 30. April können jetzt Vorschläge und Kritik eingereicht werden.

Der Vorschlag des Ministeriums steht in der Kritik verschiedener Umweltorganisationen und Bio-Verbände. Er beschäftigt sich mit Anbau, Verarbeitung, Vermarktung und Kennzeichnung von Bio-Produkten und ist nach Meinung vieler Kritiker zu wachtums- und exportorientiert, vorhandene Standards würden nicht berücksichtigt, wichtige Akteure hätten nicht am Vorschlag mitarbeiten können. Bio-Verbände rufen auch Bauern, Aktivisten und Wissenschaftler in Europa auf, zum Vorschlag der Regierung Stellung zu nehmen.

Weitere Informationsquellen: USDA National Organic Program Pure Food Campaign/Save Organic Standards Organic Farmers Marketing Association mit Vergleich der Einzelvorschläge Biodynamic Association Organic Trade Association California Certified Organic Farmers (CCOF)

Lokale Agenda 21: Deutsche Gemeinden zurückhaltend

Themen: Archiv — info @ 09:03

Bonn (agrar.de) – Die deutschen Städte und Gemeinden beteiligen sich nur zögernd am Prozeß der Lokalen Agenda 21. Das geht aus Angaben des Bonner Agenda Transfer Büros hervor.

Demnach hatten bis Ende Januar 1998 erst 146 Städte und Gemeinden das Mandat des UN Gipfels für Umwelt und Entwicklung 1992 in Rio de Janeiro zur Einleitung konkreter Schritte für eine nachhaltige und umweltgerechte Entwicklung in eine Lokale Agenda 21 umgesetzt.

Die Zahlen im Einzelnen: Baden-Würtemberg (9): Backnang, Freiburg, Heidelberg, Karlsruhe, Konstanz, Ortenau (Kreis), Pleidelsheim, Stuttgart, Ulm

Bayern (24): Adelshofen, Alling, Althendenberg, Aschaffenburg, Augsburg, Bamberg, Eichenau, Fürstenfeldbruck, Fürstenfeldbruck (Kreis), Germering, Grafrath, Gröbenzell, Hof, Kaufbeuren, Kempten, Litzendorf, München, Nürnberg, Puchheim, Regensburg, Schäftlam, Schwabach, Stegaurach, Unterhaching

Berlin (15 Bezirke): Charlottenburg, Friedrichshain, Heilersdorf, Lichtenberg, Köpenick, Kreuzberg, Marzahn, Mitte, Neukölln, Prenzlauer Berg, Reinickendorf, Schöneberg, Tempelhof, Tiergarten, Weißensee

Bremen (1): Hansestadt Bremen

Brandenburg (1): Oranienburg, Potsdam Hamburg (3): Hansestadt Hamburg, Hamburg-Harburg, Hamburg-Nord

Hessen (6): Frankfurt/Main, Heringen, Kassel, Oberursel, Riedstadt, Wiesbaden

Mecklenburg-Vorpommern (4): Greifswald, Güstrow (Kreis), Rostock, Schwerin

Niedersachsen (13): Dannenberg, (Samtgemeinde), Dörverden, Emden, Friedland, Göttingen, Goslar, Hannover, Lüchow-Dannenberg (Kreis), Lüneburg, Oldenburg, Osnabrück, Rothenburg/Wümme, Syke

NRW (50): Aachen, Aachen (Kreis), Alsdorf, Altenberg, Bad Honnef, Bielefeld, Bocholt, Bochum, Bonn, Bottrop, Dormagen, Dortmund, Duisburg, Düren, Düsseldorf, Engelskirchen, Erftstadt, Erkrath, Essen, Gelsenkirchen, Gladbeck, Hagen, Hamm, Herten, Herzogenrath, Iserlohn, Köln, Laer, Leverkusen, Leopoldshöhe, Lippe (Kreis), Löhne, Lünen, Moers, Mülheim, Münster, Neuss, Paderborn, Remscheid, Sankt Augustin, Soest, Solingen, Straelen, Unna (Kreis), Vlotho, Werne, Wiehl, Witten, Würselen, Wuppertal

Rheinland-Pfalz (6): Bernkastel-Kues, Kaiserslautern, Mainz, Neuwied (Kreis), Speyer, Südwestpfalz (Kreis)

Saarland (1): Saarbrücken

Sachsen (4): Dresden, Görlitz, Leipzig, Lichtentanne

Sachsen-Anhalt (2): Halberstadt, Magdeburg

Schleswig-Holstein (5): Flensburg, Kiel, Lübeck, Neumünster, Ostholstein (Kreis)

Thüringen (1): Gotha

(Angaben ohne Gewähr)

Seiten: << 1 2 3 4 >>



   (c)1997-2017 @grar.de