A WELSH VETO ON TTIP

The UK Westminster Government appears to be entirely set on pushing ahead with TTIP (Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership) regardless of any potential consequences for our public services. Devolution, even the flawed settlement we have, means our public services are devolved to Wales, the devolved government should be granted a veto in order to protect our NHS and other services from sweeping privatisation.

Public services should be in public hands and markets should be democratically accountable for their decisions. Public services such as our Welsh national health service should not be put at risk as a result of shadowy dealings that the UK Government is so desperate to sign up to. We need to ensure that our public services are protected from being plundered for profit by multi-nationals companies and that they remain democratically accountable.

The impending US-EU trade agreement aims to merge the EU's common market with that of the United States, but without any of the built in social and political safeguards, which are at least nominally supposed to exist within in the EU. The problem is that much of the negotiations have been conducted in secret.

Surely if there was nothing to hide then the discussions should be held in full public session and full texts of the proposals published as a matter of routine. For any trade deal to have wider public support, it must unquestionably drop any proposals for a shadow corporate legal system and ensure that the EU’s already existing environmental and social safeguards are maintained.

Any trade deal that does go ahead should definitely not be a large corporation closed shop in relation to trading across the Atlantic, as it most definitely appears at the moment. 99% of Welsh companies are SMEs, they make up the backbone of the Welsh economy - and they deserve as much of a look in with any trade deal as the big companies.

The agreement is highly controversial, the TTIP agreement risks opening up more areas of public services (including within the NHS) to private competition (something which suits the privatisation agenda of most of the Westminster based political parties), particularly those services where there is already non-government provision such as with social care.

The reality is that a strong and very productive trading relationship already exists between the EU and US. And this is a good thing. What the TTIP agreement as it is proposed will do, is give corporations unprecedented power over our public services and seriously threaten democratic decisions in the pursuit of company profit.

By discussing these issues in secret, negotiators from both sides are doing deals behind closed doors, which do not have public support and will remain largely un-discussed and un-scrutinised. We need a full honest and open debate about what TTIP should include, based on what is best for people, not multi-national companies and American trade and our own Welsh government should be standing up for our national interests.

After the financial crisis of 2007/08 and the resultant bail out of the private sector it might have been hoped that the pendulum might have swung in favour of democracy to rebalance flawed corporate power. That said, it is apparent that the Westminster based political parties don’t think so hence their relative silence on the implications of TTIP on our public services.

We need a much more democratic economy, driven and shaped by the needs of the people it serves. The TTIP agreement threatens this basic principle and as is should be rejected. The complete lack of transparency is disturbing particularly as much of the negotiation have ominously been conducted behind closed doors and little has been divulged in terms of the exact content and the level of the risk to our public services.

In its current form TTIP means that Europe will be subject to American-style 'light touch' regulation for corporate take-overs and practices. It threatens to open up our public services to the possibility of aggressive private take-overs. More disturbingly the profits of corporations will be 'future proofed’ so that any changes to laws or regulations by democratically elected governments will be open to corporate challenge.

As if bailing the banks out with public money was not bad enough, this means that all of us taxpayers may end up having to pay to make up for the potential loss of projected corporate profits. That loss of democratic accountability over our public services may well also mean that future decisions will not be subject to review by our own judiciary, but instead referred to private, corporate, closed-door courts.

A TROJAN HORSE OF A TREATY!

TTIP (Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership) the impending US-EU trade agreement marks the merging of the EU's common market with that of the United States, but without any of the built in social and political safeguards, which are at least nominally supposed to exist within in the EU. 

The agreement is highly controversial, the TTIP agreement risks opening up more areas of public services (including within the NHS) to private competition (something which suits the privatisation agenda of most of the Westminster based political parties), particularly those services where there is already non-government provision such as with social care.

The reality is that a strong and very productive trading relationship already exists between the EU and US. What the TTIP agreement as it is proposed will do, is give corporations unprecedented power over our public services and seriously threaten democratic decisions in the pursuit of company profit.

By discussing these issues in secret, negotiators from both sides are doing deals behind closed doors, which do not have public support and will remain largely un-discussed and un-scrutinised. We need a full honest and open debate about what TTIP should include, based on what is best for people, not multi-national companies and American trade and our own Welsh government should be standing up for our national interests.

After the financial crisis of 2007/08 and the resultant bail out of the private sector it might have been hoped that the pendulum might have swung in favour of democracy to rebalance flawed corporate power. That said, it is apparent that the Westminster based political parties don’t think so hence their relative silence on the implications of TTIP on our public services.

We need a much more democratic economy, driven and shaped by the needs of the people it serves. The TTIP agreement threatens this basic principle and as is should be rejected. The complete lack of transparency is disturbing particularly as much of the negotiation have ominously been conducted behind closed doors and little has been divulged in terms of the exact content and the level of the risk to our public services.

In its current form TTIP means that Europe will be subject to American-style 'light touch' regulation for corporate take-overs and practices. It threatens to open up our public services to the possibility of aggressive private take-overs. More disturbingly the profits of corporations will be 'future proofed’ so that any changes to laws or regulations by democratically elected governments will be open to corporate challenge.

As if bailing the banks out with public money was not bad enough, this means that all of us tax-payers may end up having to pay to make up for the potential loss of projected corporate profits. That loss of democratic accountability over our public services may well also mean that future decisions will not be subject to review by our own judiciary, but instead referred to private, corporate, closed-door courts.

Plaid believes that public services should be in public hands and that markets should be democratically accountable for their decisions and continues to oppose this latest attempt to sell-off and sell-out our future. We need to ensure that our public services are protected from being plundered for profit by multi-nationals companies and that they remain democratically accountable.

WALES AND TRANS-ATLANTIC TRADE

On the 3rd December Plaid Cymru leader Leanne Wood led a debate in the National Assembly on the importance of increasing trade between Wales and the USA. Plaid believes that public services, including the National Health Service, should be exempt from the effects of the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP).

TTIP – RECENT DEVELOPMENTS

France has announced that it will not sign up to the TTIP in 2015, and will not agree to the inclusion of the highly controversial ISDS (Investor State Dispute Settlement). This is highly significant and follows Germany’s earlier indication that it could not agree to the inclusion of ISDS. Other European governments, including the UK, are pushing ahead.

ISDS is a secretive arbitration process whereby multinational corporations can sue democratically elected governments if they feel that the national law in a country not only reduces their actual profits but also prevents them from making potentially greater profits. This is something that Plaid strongly opposes, as it could lead to privatisation of our public services by the back door. 

The European Commission suspended the TTIP talks on the Investor State Dispute Settlement in January to carry out a public consultation. The influential Corporate Europe Observatory gives another example of what this means in practise. It revealed that oil and gas company Lone Pine is suing Canada for CAN$250 million after the province of Quebec imposed a moratorium on shale gas extraction (fracking) because of environmental concerns. 

The ISDS consultation recorded 150,000 responses, with the majority calling for it to be taken out of the agreement. 

There has also been analysis of the promise of millions of new jobs. The Centre for Economic Policy Research (CEPR) was asked by the UK government to analyse the impact on the economy. Their figure of £10 billion in gains by 2027 depended on scrapping three quarters of non-tariff barriers in the chemicals, automotive and business/ICT sector. This is not even being discussed in TTIP and is simply not credible.

The CEPR, in another report for the Commission, could not predict any general impact on employment from TTIP, but it did see a risk of EU and US jobs actually being lost! 

The European Parliament will adopt a report with recommendations to the Commission on TTIP. It will be wide-ranging and discussed by many committees, including the Culture and Transport committees on which Plaid’s Jill Evans MEP sits. The Conservative group, the ECR, opposed having this report. The timetable is expected to be short, with the vote possibly as early as March 2015. 

Some of the committees will hold public hearings to examine the detail of different aspects of TTIP.

Plaid Cymru adopted a strongly worded resolution opposing TTIP back in our October conference. Members of the RCN and Unison gave strong backing to our position. Plaid will continue to campaign against TTIP. 

SAVE OUR NHS FROM EU-US TRADE DEAL

Plaid Cymru has called for the UK Westminster Government to explicitly exempt the NHS from US private buy-outs, which the questionably beneficial new free trade deal between the EU and US could enable. The Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (or TTIP) which is aimed at opening up the EU market to the US and vice-versa. Some Member States have already ensured exemptions; from initial negotiations e.g. France has protected its film industry from the free trade deal.

Plaid Cymru Shadow Cabinet Minister for Health Elin Jones, after meetings with EU officials in Brussels last week said:

"Negotiations relating to this US trade deal must ensure the NHS is protected from potential private interference. The NHS is a treasure and is rooted in social considerations. As such, it should not be subject to the principles of a free market. There is no place for profiteering in our health service.

"The French have ensured protection for an important aspect of their public life and the UK government must do the same for the NHS. If Westminster refuses to do so, it would be reasonable to suspect that this is part of their wider privatisation agenda that we see in England. We should be very concerned that the financial implications of this would have huge consequences for Wales and could threaten the way health services are delivered.

Plaid Cymru’s Jill Evans MEP added:

"EU governments, including the UK, of course, gave the European Commission the power to negotiate this trade deal with the USA on our behalf. But even the European Parliament hasn't seen the negotiating mandate. Discussions are all taking place behind closed doors. We know that the TTIP as it stands, contains the Investor State Dispute Resolution or ISDS, a provision that allows private companies to sue governments if their profits are affected by actual or even proposed legislation. Because of widespread objection, the Commission has held a consultation on this and I very much hope the Welsh Government has responded on our behalf.

"We must ensure that the NHS is exempt from the TTIP in the interests of all the people of Wales and the Welsh Government is seriously failing in its duty if it has not called for this.

While most people have probably never heard of the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (or TTIP) – an agreement between the EU and the USA, which is being promoted as the biggest ever free trade agreement. The devil may well lie in the detail, as the TTIP, if it is agreed, contains a number of highly controversial proposals which could seriously undermine workers’ rights, affect agriculture, weaken food hygiene, lower quality standards and affect digital privacy laws.

International trade is an important component part of our economy and if we want to a strong and vibrant Welsh economy then exports of quality Welsh products around the world will play their part. TTIP, however, won’t help us much because in its current form it is little more than a charter for multinational corporations to make more money at everyone else’s expense. The problem is that the plans for a free trade zone between the EU and the USA are based on cutting costs, something that will be achieved by lowering quality standards and rolling back hard earned workers’ employment rights.

Plaid Cymru MEP Jill Evans, has noted that probably the section of the agreement that should seriously worry most people are the plans for ‘Investor state dispute settlement’ which would allow foreign (basically US) companies to take governments to court if they act in a way that could reduce investors’ profits. Understandably a whole variety of concerned groups including Friends of the Earth Europe have warned that this clause in particular could be invoked by US companies if European governments introduce legislation to improve workers’ rights, including pay, or to improve health or environmental legislation.

The impact could be far reaching, for example, if at some point a future Welsh Government improved workers’ rights by securing a living wage or ending zero hours contracts or if they enacted strong environmental legislation to combat climate change - then they could be liable to be sued by multinational companies. Already the free-trade agreement in North America, NAFTA, lead to legal threats to Canada because of a moratorium on fracking in Quebec. It is unacceptable for democratic governments to end up in a position where multi-national companies can take them to court when they have acted in the best interests of their own people, rather than simply acting as agents to assist corporate profits to be ramped up to the max.

What perhaps is most disturbing, aside from the fact that, not untypically, that most the discussions and negotiations have been carried out behind closed doors, when what’s needed is an honest and open debate about what TTIP should include, based on what is best for people, not just for multi-national companies and US trade. We should all be concerned that US senators have already begun to call for an end to European specialist product definitions which act a mark of quality, in Wales they include Welsh beef and lamb, as well as Pembrokeshire Early potatoes and Halen Mon.

THE DEVIL IS IN THE DETAIL...

Most people have probably never heard of the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (or TTIP) – an agreement between the EU and the USA, which is being promoted as the biggest ever free trade agreement. The devil may well lie in the detail, as the TTIP, if it is agreed, contains a number of highly controversial proposals which could seriously undermine workers’ rights, affect agriculture, weaken food hygiene, lower quality standards and affect digital privacy laws.

Now international trade is a vital component of our economy and if we want to a strong and vibrant Welsh economy then exports quality Welsh products around the world will play their part. The proposed TTIP, however, won’t help because in its current form it is little more than a charter for multinational corporations to make more money. The problem is that the plans (such as they are) for a free trade zone between the EU and the USA are based on cutting costs, something that will be achieved by lowering quality standards and rolling back hard earned workers’ employment rights.

As noted by Plaid Cymru MEP Jill Evans, probably the section of the agreement that should concern most people are the plans for ‘Investor state dispute settlement’ which would basically would allow foreign (basically US) companies to take governments to court if they act in a way that could reduce investors’ profits. A whole variety of groups including Friends of the Earth Europe have warned that this clause in particular could be invoked by US companies if European governments introduce legislation to improve workers’ rights, including pay, or to improve health or environmental legislation.

On a very basic level this could mean that if at some point a future Welsh Government improved workers’ rights by securing a living wage or ending zero hours contracts or if they enacted strong environmental legislation to combat climate change - then they could be liable to be sued by multinational companies. Already the free-trade agreement in North America, NAFTA, lead to legal threats to Canada because of a moratorium on fracking in Quebec. It has to be unacceptable for democratic governments to end up in a position where multi-national companies can take them to court when they have acted in the best interests of their people, rather than simply acting to enable corporate profits to be ramped up.

Disturbingly, aside from the fact that, not untypically, most the discussions and negotiations have been carried out behind closed doors, when what’s needed is an honest and open debate about what TTIP should include, based on what is best for people, not just for multi-national companies and US trade. We should be concerned that there have already been calls from US senators for an end to European specialist product definitions which act a mark of quality, in Wales they include Welsh beef and lamb, as well as Pembrokeshire Early potatoes and Halen Mon.

DID HE REALLY SAY THAT?

When someone you have convinced yourself is your best friend (and you believe has your best interests at heart) says something truthful but hurtful about you that can be upsetting. However, when they say it publically for all to hear then it’s twice as hurtful and if you had any sense you might be well advised to question the value of your so called friendship. The former US defence secretary, Robert Gates has said that cuts to the UK's armed forces will limit the country's ability to be a major player on the world stage. And that the spending cuts would mean the UK could no longer be a full [useful] military partner of the US.

Under the current Con Dem Coalition government’s plans, by 2020 the Army will have lost some 20,000 personnel, with the Royal Navy losing 6,000 and the RAF some 5,000. Despite the cuts the MOD was quick to point out that the UK still has the fourth largest defence budget in the world. However, when interviewed by BBC Radio 4's Today programme (16.01.2014) Robert Gates noted that - for the first time since World War One - Britain did not have an operational aircraft carrier.

Mr Gates, who served under presidents Obama and Bush, singled out cuts to the navy as particularly damaging. He said; "With the fairly substantial reductions in defence spending in Great Britain, what we're finding is that it won't have full spectrum capabilities and the ability to be a full partner as they have been in the past." Incidentally, last month the Chief of the Defence Staff, General Sir Nicholas Houghton, warned that the UK could be left with the "spectre" of a hollowed-out force. While this latest American  intervention probably won’t reverse Cameron’s defence cuts it will wound the UK's pride and may shatter a few still held illusions or possibly delusions.

The not so big secret to the UK’s so called ‘special relationship’ with the USA dates back to the dark days of the Second World War is that the relationship is not that special. The UK was dependent on aid from the USA well before Pearl Harbour brought the Americans into the war. Our history (or more like our spun history) tells us that ‘lend lease’ saved us, what’s not said is that ‘lend lease’ was more like ‘cash and carry’ i.e. they take our cash and we do the carrying across the broad U Boat filled Atlantic even after America came into the war.

By the war’s end Britain was pretty much broke (or at least financially challenged) and stretched pretty thin militarily (in terms of manpower UK and Commonwealth forces peaked out in the autumn of 1944|). The Empire and with it ‘imperial responsibility’ unravelled surprisingly rapidly in the post war years. Britain walked from Palestine and Greece, and India, Pakistan, Burma and Sri Lanka gained their independence, despite this the delusionary myth of Imperial greatness and the ‘special relationship with the USA remained.

The reality was that the USA since the early part of the twentieth century had been one way or another pretty much determined to break up the British Empire. Any delusions that the ‘Brits’ had about their position in the world, should have evaporated during and after the Suez crisis when an irate President Eisenhower, told Britain’s Prime Minister Anthony Eden bluntly to halt the military invasion of Egypt or face up to the economic and political consequences. Britain and France found themselves up against it in the face of US economic and political power and interests in 1956 and both lost.

The French decided to maintain an independent foreign policy, which if it coincided with US interests was all well and good, but if not then no matter. The Brits made a different choice, they decided never to oppose US interests again, at least not publically, from 1956 onwards US interests would be British interests requardless. Under continual pressure from the US the remainder of the Empire vanished far more rapidly than it was acquired, being mostly gone by 1964.

The Brits pretty much never stepped out of line again, unlike the French, who retained control of their own foreign policy. Now all this may be slightly delayed fallout from the so called Westminster elite’s failure to secure a majority in the House of Commons for military action over Syria. With the ‘Brits’ making the awkward transition from useful ally and friend  to potential liability people may well be forgiven for wondering where does that leave the so called ‘special relationship’?  

THE WAR OF THE WORDS

The war of the words, despite last evenings vote against military action without parliamentary approval, continues, while the war on the ground in Syria (and body count grows ever higher). Clearly the experience of Iraq and Afghanistan weighed heavily on MP’s minds in Westminster yesterday. Whatever the merits of the intervention or not with regard to the conflict in Syria are, we are all somewhere different to where we were in 2003. The fact that Blair favoured intervention swung some of my relatives to a position of opposition to intervention. Armed intervention in Syria with or without UN approval (which is unlikely with the Russian and Chinese veto) would be a risky business.

The Syrian situation is far more complicated than was the situation in Iraq and Afghanistan – in theory Saddam could have fled to exile, but, Assad has nowhere to go and neither does his constituency of support amongst the sizeable (and well armed) Alawite minority.  Last evenings vote of Westminster MP's against military intervention in Syria may send sizeable shock waves through the Obama administration. Whereas previously the Brits have tended to march in step with the US, this rejection of President Barack Obama's argument may well upset the special relationship for some time to come.

It can be argued this key event has been a long time coming, and save for Harold Wilson’s refusal to commit UK ground troops to Vietnam in the 1960’s (which was duly punished) it has largely been avoided (at least since Suez). Certainly before last night’s vote, the US administration appeared relatively relaxed about David Cameron's problems and any delays in the Brits joining the new collation. Now in the cold light of day things may be different, it may to too early to say whether or not the Brits have finally cast of their adoptive mantle of Uncle Sam’s poodle.

The trigger for any intervention has been the alleged use of chemical weapons against civilians by the Syrian regime, the latest of possible 14 instances of chemical weapons use,  may yet trigger a US-led military response. The UN route may be blocked with Russia and China very publically opposed to any military action, which means that the UN Security Council will be unable to give its backing to any intervention which may raise some questions about the legal basis for military intervention.

Any desire for intervention may relate more to Syria (and the strategic situation in the Middle East) than it does to the use of chemical weapons as such. They have been used before (on some scale) by Saddam Hussein, against the Iranians (during the Iran – Iraq war) and later against the Kurds. On both occasion the Western Allies (and the USA) said next to nothing as Saddam was their boy - he was only to become a problem later when he invaded Kuwait (triggering the first gulf war back in 1991).

Last evenings cross-party amendment on Syria called for legal evidence and UN inspectors reports to be presented before any decision is taken on military action are taken, something that most reasonable people would probably agree with as a reasonable and rational response to the crisis. Judging by the look on David Cameron’s face last night as the debate concluded in a government defeat there may be trouble ahead and the one sided ‘special relationship’ may be on hold for the foreseeable future. 

Perhaps finally the lessons of Afghanistan and Iraq may have sunk in and days of the UK  strutting the stage and over extending itself by pretending to be a global player are over - it may be too early to say. That said, something needs to be done to bring an end to the increasingly bloody conflict in Syria – doing that will require UN approval (which is unlikely) and a plan (which may well be nonexistent if recent experiences in Iraq are anything to go by).  

So as the war of words continues in the West, the war on the ground will continue in the Middle East, the refugee crisis will get worse and the body count will grow ever higher. There was as far as I could perceive last evening only as slight if faint whiff of Munich wafting through some of the MP's in the House of Commons last evening - perhaps prompted by some of the friends of Syria (Assad); that said  the vote should not be an excuse of inaction or indifference to the plight of the people of Syria, as something still needs to be done. 

SOME MORE FOOD FOR THOUGHT?

Biofuels were suppose to save us and the planet from a combination of global warming and an over reliance on fossil fuels. The problem is that many biofuels are reliant on monoculture cropping and industrial agricultural systems, massive fertilizer inputs, large quantities of water and huge amounts of oil. One result of this is that biofuels may end up accelerating global warming by leading to the destruction of forests and other natural ecosystems when land is cleared for the cultivation of biofuel crops.

Another result is that biofuels end up in the developing world competing with food for land, increasing food prices and hunger. The biofuels industry is also supported by a number of different policies in both the USA, Brazil and the EU including various tax subsidies, trade barriers, government grants and loans. We need to bring to an end policies that directly support the production of environmentally harmful biofuels, and make room for sustainable energy alternatives and more environmentally friendly and socially responsible biofuels.

A recent report by Chatham House says the growing reliance on sustainable liquid fuels will also increase food prices . Basically biodiesel made from vegetable oil is worse for the climate than fossil fuels. The report noted that the UK’s use of biofuels is “irrational” and will cost UK motorists around £460 million over the next 12 months. The EU plan (underwritten by law) is for biofuels to make up 5% of the UK's transport fuel as of 15th April. The UK (since 2008) has required fuel suppliers to add a growing proportion of sustainable materials into the petrol and diesel they supply.

Many of these biofuels are distilled from ethanol which is sourced  from corn and biodiesel made from rapeseed, used cooking oil and tallow. Chatham House research suggests that reaching the 5% level will result in UK motorists having to pay around an extra £460 million pounds a year because of the higher cost of fuel at the pump and from filling up more often as biofuels have a lower energy content. The report states that if the UK is to meet its obligations to EU energy targets the cost to motorists is likely to rise to £1.3 billion pounds per annum by 2020.

The problem with the EU biofuel mandates are that they have huge distorting effects in the marketplace. As a result of used cooking oil being regarded as one of the most sustainable types of biodiesel, the price paid for it has soured. By the end of 2012 used cooking oil was more expensive than refined palm oil. Another concern is that taking EU land out of production to grow rapeseed oil in particular will end up creating more climate problems than it solves.

The more fuel of this type that is put into cars the bigger the deficit created in the edible oils market. This had resulted in increased imports of palm oil from Indonesia, which is often produced on illegally deforested land. As the UK reaches its 5% of liquid fuels target, the government faces some tough decisions on how to move forward as it may end up facing a tripling of the costs for motorists by 2020.

The UK Westminster government may prefer to try and get do a deal with Brussels on the impacts of indirect costs which might restrict what exactly counts as biofuel. There are problems with this, especially when it comes to reaching an agreement with those EU countries which have powerful agricultural sectors who rake in the cash from the current biofuels arrangements.

Outside of Europe there are other consequences with the acquisition of land by multi nationals for development or to acquire resources at the expense of local people. This is bound to be a touchy subject especially when little medium to long term sustainable benefit is delivered to the indigenous inhabitants. What's happening now in Africa is subtly different, there is a race going on between multinational companies on one hand and the emerging economic giant of the Peoples Republic of China on the other hand to acquire land, not so much for the minerals (although that is a factor) but to acquire the ability to grow food.

An interesting report (produced by the Oakland Institute) has noted that Hedge funds are now getting involved in acquiring land in Africa to produce food and biofuels, which will all boost their profits.  The report notes that foreign firms and hedge funds) have been quietly purchasing large chunks of land in Africa, often without any proper contracts and that this activity has led to the displacement of millions of small farmers, who are losing out as multinational firms try to secure their hold of the global food markets. Food production is often sacrificed to make space for cash crops for export, including flowers and biofuels, which fetch a tidy profit.

Since 2009 foreign firms the report noted that have acquired land equivalent to the size of France (nearly 60 million hectares) from questionable but lucrative deals with a combination of gullible traditional leaders or corrupt government officials in Ethiopia, Tanzania, South Sudan, Sierra Leone, Mali and Mozambique. I have no doubt that the foreign firms make many promises of progress, development and jobs to local communities, but they don't necessarily come close to delivering on the promises.

Investors benefit with a wide range of incentives written into their contracts from unlimited water rights to tax waivers, but, are clearly not there to help feed starving Africans. Sounds familiar doesn't it - not that much of step from the old days of the WDA throwing wads of cash of foreign investors, who got all sorts of benefits (grants and incentives), promised much (I seem to recall the magic figure of 6,000 jobs kept cropping up in the 1980's, 1990s and early 2000's) yet in the end never quite delivered all that was promised.

OUR DAILY BREAD?

As fuel prices creep upwards, as we are waiting to get hit by price rises from the energy cartel, the next hard blow to our wallets will come in the form of rising food prices. The poor summer across the northern hemisphere (either too wet or too dry) is impacting on global food prices which have risen by 10% in the month of July, which has raised the fears of soaring prices for the planet's poorest, as noted by the World Bank.

Oxfam has noted that when extreme weather events drive local or regional price spikes, the people living in poverty face a double shock as they have to cope with higher prices, just like the rest of us. The difference between the developed and developing world is that this often comes at a time when the direct effects of extreme weather events have often already depleted their assets, destroyed their crops and stripped them of their livelihoods.

Back in 2011 the emergency in the Horn of Africa and the 2012 Sahel food crisis clearly showed how this combination can lead to hunger on a mass scale. The small-scale subsistence farmers and the pastoralists ended up getting hit hard in both regions, where the loss of livestock and crops reduced available food stocks and also reduced the value of people’s assets so that they were unable to afford to buy food

The World Bank has warned that the affects of the US heat wave and drought in parts of Eastern Europe were partly to blame for the rising food costs. Key grains such as corn, wheat and soybean saw the most dramatic price increases, something that will hit those countries that import grains particularly badly. Between June to July (2012), corn and wheat prices rose by 25% and soybean prices increased by 17%. The World Bank noted that only rice prices fell by some 4%.

In the USA, the worst (and widespread) drought for fifty years has wrought havoc on the corn and soybean crops while simultaneously in Russia, Ukraine and Kazakhstan, the wheat crops have been badly damaged. To make matters worse, the World Bank noted that the continued use of corn to produce ethanol biofuels (which absorbs around 40% of US corn production) played a key role in the sharp rise in the price of US maize.

While we (the food consumers) will all loses out, the impact on developing countries in North and Sub-Saharan Africa and the Middle East who will be the most exposed to price rises because significant quantities of their food is imported and food bills make up a large proportion of average household spending, will be harsher. .

Already maize prices had increased by 113% over the past quarter in Mozambique, and the price of sorghum had risen 220% in South Sudan. Last time this happened (back in 2008) there was widespread unrest. Other potential factors could make a potentially bad situation worse and force grain prices still higher. The World Bank is concerned about a combination of food exporters pursuing panic policies, a severe El Nino, poor Southern hemisphere harvests and strong increases in energy prices.

The World Bank's Food Price Index (which tracks the price of internationally traded food commodities) was six percent higher than in July 2011 and one percent up from the previous peak, which was back in February 2011. Why is this important? Well aside from the fact that the most vulnerable in poorer countries will lose out? While we won’t starve, in the developed world as food (and fuel) prices go up, our purchasing power goes down (and we spend less), something that will hit the wider economy.