Speeches April 2009

Monday 27 April 2009 at 11.30 a.m.

Progress report of the Bureau of the Assembly and the Standing Committee

Mr MELNIKOV (Russian Federation) On behalf of the group - said that there was no doubt in the mind of his group that European international organisations, especially the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe and the Council of Europe, had to be given a full opportunity to engage in election monitoring. His group was certain that recent events in Moldova were not in line with what Moldovan citizens wanted. The Moldovan Government had acted inappropriately when it had raised the flag during demonstrations. This had been an act of treachery. However, what was worse was that the countries of the Council of Europe had not acted immediately or done enough.

He asked why, during the events that had taken place in Georgia the previous year, the countries of the Council of Europe had not acted more quickly. European society could not close its eyes to such actions. The Assembly had to demonstrate a leadership role and insist that the European Union take action in order to allow Moldova to develop as it wanted. The Assembly should openly criticise the actions of certain political parties in Moldova. He called on the Assembly to criticise strongly those groups which were trying to destabilise the country.

Monday 27 April 2009 at 3 p.m.

Protection of human rights in emergency situations

Mr KOX (Netherlands). On behalf of the group – I start by complimenting Rapporteur Haibach on this report on the protection of human rights in emergency situations. It is always important to protect human rights in emergency situations and yet it seems to be extremely difficult to do so. I refer to the horrible abuses that happened in the so-called war against terror. If I say waterboarding, everyone will know what I mean. If I say rendition, everyone will know what I mean. We all know that the United States and some states of Europe were involved in those abuses of fundamental rights.

Recent events in Georgia and Armenia also showed how, in a state of emergency, fundamental rights were very much threatened by Governments who are entitled to call a state of emergency. Neither is it only the Governments of Georgia and Armenia that misused the state of emergency and utilised what in other circumstances would have been viewed as illegal means to curb opposition forces and persons by restricting their fundamental rights.

To declare a state of emergency and therewith restrict fundamental rights is allowed under the European Convention on Human Rights but only under the strictest criteria, as the rapporteur shows. We agree with these criteria which I will describe as temporality, imminence, public declaration, appropriate international notification, legal conduct and the inviolability of non-derogable rights. It is important to adopt those criteria in this Assembly. If we agree with them, we oblige ourselves to monitor very closely a government that has declared, or intends to declare, a state of emergency. I agree with the rapporteur. He envisages a special role for the Secretary General of this Organisation, which is one more reason for a fine election of that important person to take place.

If we conclude that a government’s decision to declare a state of emergency does not meet all the criteria specified by the rapporteur, we should demand that it explain its decision, and if it fails to do so we should demand an immediate lifting of the state of emergency. Clear and timely international pressure can help to restore respect for fundamental rights. Georgia is an example: its government overreacted by declaring a state of emergency, and international pressure helped to lift it. If, as we believe, governments should accept that declaring a state of emergency must always be an ultimum remedium, other forces must not provoke governments to make use of their right to adopt it. That responsibility lies not just with governments, but with all forces in society.

The report gives us clear guidelines and criteria, for which we thank the rapporteur, but I hope he will elaborate a little on the role that he envisages for the national delegations in changing the rules in their own countries if necessary.

Tuesday 28 April 2009 at 10 a.m.

The situation of human rights defenders in Council of Europe member states

Mr KESKIN (Germany) On behalf of the group said the human rights, the rule of law and democracy were the three corner stones of the Council’s work. Human rights were universal, inviolable, indivisible and unassailable. He said that he followed closely the position in Turkey, stating that Turkish was his second language. In the last 10 years, Turkey had introduced some impressive reforms. However, recently, human rights issues had become a sad source of concern. Lawyers and experts, among others, were expressing concern over the threats to political and judicial processes. He cited examples of individuals who might be detained without cause, notification or charge. It was vital to have proper constitutional processes. A recent headscarf ban in schools and colleges was just one other example of infringements of human rights. Turkey had often been the unjustified butt of criticism, but there was an acute danger to some human rights in Turkey at the moment. Every state was able to take action against criminals using legal means but the persecution and defamation of human rights activists was, to say the least, an inappropriate intrusion.

Tuesday 28 April 2009 at 3 p.m.

Honouring of obligations and commitments by Serbia

Mr ELZINGA (Netherlands). On behalf of the group – I would like to welcome this well-written and balanced report, and I want to thank the Monitoring Committee and the two co-rapporteurs for their excellent work.

As a member of the Ad hoc Committee for the Observation of the Parliamentary Election in Serbia on 11 May last year, I note the strong commitment of many Serbian voters to democracy and the rule of law. I think we can clearly state that the recent elections were conducted in accordance with the Council’s standards for fair and democratic elections. We also welcome the progress made in the implementation of Serbia’s commitment to co-operation with the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia. However, more needs to be done. In that respect, the report may be too optimistic about the ratification of the Stabilisation and Association Agreement between the EU and Serbia.

Clearly, Serbian membership of the EU is still far away, although the Council of Europe is not the right place to discuss that issue. Future EU membership of Serbia remains a matter between Serbia and the EU. However, the co-operation of Serbia with The Hague tribunal is a very relevant issue for the Council of Europe, so some remarks on that should be made.

Mladić and Hadzić must be caught and brought to justice. Given that I come from the Netherlands, I want to see them arraigned in The Hague, not because the EU wants it, but because the people of the former republics of Yugoslavia have a right to it. It is also true that people in Serbia want to live under the rule of law and need to know that the perpetrators of war crimes and other human rights violations will be brought to justice. The victims and their relatives and loved ones deserve that.

With respect to Kosovo, we welcome the fact that the report notes that the Serbian authorities have defended their position by peaceful and diplomatic means in accordance with international law. We also well understand the frustration of the Serbian authorities with the unilateral declaration of independence by the Kosovo Assembly and the fact that Kosovo has already been recognised by many countries. That, as my group has already pointed out, was a huge mistake. I would like to underline the need of Serbia fully to co-operate with the competent bodies in Kosovo, including the EU-led Rule of Law Mission, EULEX, to resolve the fate and whereabouts of all victims of enforced disappearances and abductions 10 years after the end of the war in Kosovo. Once again, the victims and their relatives and loved ones are waiting for that. That is why I tabled Amendment No. 39.

When I was in Serbia as an observer of the parliamentary election, all the authorities gave me full co-operation. Nevertheless, some minor points were noted, mostly regarding the votes of internationally displaced persons. It is not always easy to find solutions to that problem, especially when there are so many such displaced persons as a result of recent serious armed conflicts. I am happy, however, that Serbia has committed itself to improving the overall situation of the Roma in the country, of whom a number are internally displaced people from Kosovo. Unfortunately, the Serbian authorities recently carried out some forced evictions of Romani people by temporary settlement, so I propose an amendment and resolution to call on Serbia to take measures to guarantee the Romani people’s rights to adequate housing. That is Amendment No. 41.

Lastly, while on my mission in Serbia, several times, without any inducement, I encountered strong language and prejudices against gay people. I thus welcome the fact that Mr Gross, after his last fact-finding mission, stressed the rights of the LGBT – lesbian, gay, bi-sexual and transgender – organisations and activists. I strongly support Amendment No. 23 to the Addendum.

Action to combat gender-based human rights violations, including abduction of women and girls

Mrs FRAHM (Denmark).On behalf of the group – I cannot highlight enough the importance of the need to protect all victims of violence against women and girls. Today, we heard a testimony in the committee from Dr Abedin, which Mrs Papadopoulos referred to. She is a very brave woman in coming to tell us about her tragic story.

I congratulate the rapporteur on her excellent work and I remind the Assembly that, in October 2008, we asked for a convention on domestic violence to improve the level of protection for the victims of, for example, forced marriage. I ask the Assembly to support the draft resolution and the recommendation from the rapporteur.

Women in Prison

Mr LECOQ (France) On behalf of the group - said that Nathanial Hawthorne had expressed most poetically the trouble of linking women and crime by referring to female prisons as “the black flower of civilisation”. In the post-romantic world, female crime had become a cliché: women were the weaker sex and they committed “les crimes passionels”. However, the reality was that the penal establishments that could best be described as “unisex” were in fact, wholly adapted for men. The report emphasised the difficulties for pregnant women, women with children and foreign nationals. Prison overcrowding was an issue for all sexes, but for women there were the added issues of self-harm, mental health problems and a lack of proper care. The children of women prisoners were particularly affected.

In his previous roles as a teacher and local councillor he had seen cases of “social incest” whereby the children of parents – but particularly mothers – who had been in prison, were drawn into crime. The debate should be broadened to include children, with particular regard to the post-sentence assistance given to prisoners. More thought should have gone into contact between women prisoners and their children and alternatives to incarceration such as electronic tagging. Improving education was also of key importance: as Victor Hugo said, “He who opens a school door, closes a prison door”. He said that although his final point was a little tangential, hundreds of women had been imprisoned for their principles and the debate should be dedicated to them.

Wednesday 29 April 2009 at 10 a.m.

Joint debate on Georgia and Russia

Mr KESKIN (Germany) On behalf of the group - said that the August 2008 war between Georgia and Russia had created deep wounds which would persist for a long time. There were many internally displaced people and refugees who were unable to return home. Action had to be taken. One hundred thousand internally displaced people had now returned home to the buffer zone. There remained a housing problem, despite assistance from the international community.

The Council of Europe had given humanitarian and technical assistance. It was necessary to pay tribute to all those involved in the reconstruction process. However, the Assembly should not lose sight of the need to help refugees return to their place of origin. It was important that civil society organisations supported all refugees. It was necessary to introduce confidence-building measures. Council of Europe member states had to give their full assistance to the OECD Assistance Mission. He drew the attention of the Assembly to the issue of cluster bombs, which were still being produced and used in the area. A number of groupings within the Council of Europe had voiced their objection to the use of cluster bombs, but some countries had still not spoken out against it. The Assembly had to work together to stop the use of cluster bombs in the region.

Mr ZIUGANOV (Russian Federation) said that the debate was taking place during a period of financial crisis. It was worth noting that the last two such crises had ended in world wars. There were so many victims of the conflict that the Assembly had to recognise that it had been caused by military provocation. Pogroms were taking place and monuments to those who had freed Europe from fascism were being pulled down. Georgia was taking part in all sorts of military exercises and no one was saying that these were rash and provocative. Human rights were being defended and upheld in Ossetia, or at least this was the case since the bombing had finished. Children were going to school; elections were due to be held in May; the right to live in dignity had been guaranteed; and a new infrastructure was being established. Russia had only done what it had done after war had broken out. There was no point blaming Russia for sins which it had not committed.

Wednesday 29 April 2009 at 3 p.m.

Urgent debate: Election process for the Secretary General of the Council of Europe

Mr KOX (Netherlands).On behalf of the group – It is a well-known fact that, whereas politicians are fairly good at creating problems, diplomats are used to solving problems and coming up with reasonable solutions. This time, however, it seems to be the other way around. Our diplomats have now created a problem, and it appears to be up to us politicians to come up with a reasonable solution. My group will propose such a solution, but before we deal with that, let us conclude that all the organs of the Council of Europe have a common interest in securing a new Secretary General who is able to represent us all. We all want a Secretary General who can lift the visibility as well as the relevance of the Council of Europe.

Although we know that when the good Lord created mankind, politicians and diplomats did not represent his best performance, my group would like to assume that both we – politicians – and they – diplomats – wish to find the best possible Secretary General, in order to create more possibilities for a better-known and more respected Council of Europe. Let us assume, therefore, that our diplomats created a problem by coming up with a draft opinion on a shortlist of two instead of four candidates, but that they did so because they believed that they were solving a problem created both by their governments and by the Assembly endorsing the Juncker report in 2005.

The report contained, among much else, the wish that the next Secretary General would be a high-ranking figure in the European political aristocracy. Our diplomats therefore wish to advise our ministers to present a list of two candidates to the Assembly in June, because, in the opinion of our ambassadors, they meet the so-called Juncker criteria. Of course our ambassadors would have preferred more candidates; but Mr Blair became special envoy to the Middle East, Mr Rasmussen went to NATO, Mr Putin became Prime Minister Putin and Prime Minister Juncker became President of Euroland – and Senator de Puig became President of this Assembly.

The ambassadors’ list therefore became a very short list. However, they then created a huge problem by not accepting the candidacy of two other solicitants, both of whom happen to be members of the Assembly. They also forgot that our rules are quite clear on at least on part of the procedure: the explicit demand that the Assembly be consulted before a decision is made on a list of candidates. Mr Greenway’s report provides complete clarity on that issue, and I congratulate him on it.

I realise that it sometimes looks like diplomatic power play when decisions are made on important posts in the Council of Europe. However, let me continue to assume that the ambassadors do not envy those in power, but want to be the best servants of democracy. If that is so, my group hopes that both ambassadors and the Assembly will endorse our proposal that the Committee of Ministers should present the Assembly with a list of all four candidates on which the Committee can indicate its preference, as foreseen in the rules. With that proposal, we respectfully meet the wish of the ambassadors that governments should have a say in the election of a Secretary General, while the Assembly’s right to as broad a choice as possible is not questioned

The functioning of democratic institutions in Moldova

Mr LOTMAN (Estonia). On behalf of the group – Dear colleagues, everyone must have a full right to demonstrate peacefully, but no one has the right to burn down the parliament building. The issue is as simple as that and that message should be the first that this Assembly sends to Moldova. The second message is clearly related: the way forward lies in dialogue, not confrontation. “Dialogue” means two sides, otherwise it is just a monologue. Both the government and the opposition have to talk to each other meaningfully – with words, not threats, kicks or Molotov cocktails.

The third message is based on the previous ones. The Council of Europe is here to help Moldova overcome the crisis. That means that the assessment of the situation in the country should be consistent between the different reports. That includes the assessments of the elections; we cannot say that the elections were basically good in one report and that they were very bad in another. The situation with elections is indeed complicated. During the observation mission, I witnessed one person voting on behalf of another and I included that in my observation report. However, overall assessment from the election observation team was that the elections were by and large democratic, although several problems were noted. It is important to maintain consistency between the different documents that we produce here.

Last but not least, to be able to be fully responsible for what happens in the country, the government must have full control of it. Other countries must respect Moldova’s sovereignty within its internationally approved borders. First and foremost, that means that Russian armed forces, as the major cause of instability in the country, must be removed from Transnistria and that all the other neighbouring countries must also refrain from any activities that undermine peaceful development in Moldova. Let us wish Moldova good luck in turning hardships into opportunities for national reconciliation and in moving forward with dialogue.

Mrs POSTOICO (Moldova) congratulated the rapporteurs on their desire to objectively reflect the current situation in Moldova. The fact that the issue was being discussed after the election on 5 April 2009 and the events that followed them was of particular importance to Moldova. However, those particular events were not to be welcomed by the Assembly. The Moldovan people were not aggressive and had not previously taken such a path. The Moldovan authorities had never sought to bypass Council of Europe recommendations. She agreed that there was a need to look at Moldovan electoral laws and that all interested parties had to condemn acts of violence

Address by Mr José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero

Mr KOX (The Netherlands). On behalf of the group – Companero Zapatero, on 1 May socialists and unions in Spain and many other countries will call on all workers of the world to unite to fight for better conditions than neo-capitalism can deliver. You have the unique and excellent opportunity – from Europe, at least – to say goodbye to market fundamentalism and neo-liberalism and to say welcome to a more democratic and socialist approach to today’s problems and tomorrow’s society. You have the floor now for your 1 May speech.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation).– I call Mr Zapatero to reply.

Mr ZAPATERO was delighted to answer that question. He said that Mr Kox was right and that two lessons needed to be learned from the recession. First, an unfettered market without democratic oversight and scrutiny tended to end up being a market of avarice and covetousness where people were swindled. Secondly, more social rights were needed. When that kind of economic crisis occurred, responses should be largely social. In the past, people tended to think that states should cut social welfare benefits, restrict the rights of workers and generally make sacrifices. The lesson from the current crisis was that such thinking was based on ideological prejudice and pre-conceived notions. The only way out of the recession was to extend social welfare and workers’ rights. That was what Spain would do. There would be no cuts in benefits and no restrictions of workers’ rights. Spain would move beyond dogma.

Often, the ideological camp that said states should cut public spending would prevail, but there was little private investment at the moment so public spending must increase. Many of those who held the view expressed above would then go to their government for a bail-out: this was the height of cynicism, and the people needed to be made aware of that. It was important for the health of democracy. Some people had sought to put their money into tax havens, these were usually the same people who were allergic to public spending and called for cuts. The weakest in societies must be the winners and the shameless and brazen must lose. The world had experienced 20 years’ of growth, there was a lot of prosperity and wealth in the world which should be better distributed so that people could live in dignity. States should ensure that profits were sustainable.

The point had to be made loud and clear. He would be with the people demonstrating on the streets on 1 May. He would ensure that they would not be the losers as they all too often were. The losers had to be those who had exploited the workers. He hoped that the workers’ ideals would be strong enough to ensure that the global financial order was just.

The functioning of democratic institutions in Moldova (resumed debate)

Mr PETRENCO (Moldova) said that the report under discussion concerned the democratic institutions in Moldova. The Assembly had to bear in mind that parliamentary elections had been concluded and had demonstrated how effectively democracy was working in Moldova. Electoral observers had agreed that the elections had been free and fair and followed international standards. What had happened after the elections had been nothing to do with those elections, but had been an excuse to attack democracy. External factors had been at play in Chişanău: a large number of Romanians had appeared there and the demonstrations had been portrayed in Romania as a revolution. Romanians had been encouraged to go, but Moldova had not reacted. Romania did not recognise Moldova as a separate, unified state and regarded Moldovan citizens as Romanians. This had been going on for years and the events of 6 and 7 April in Chişanău demonstrated the influence which Romania had on democratic processes in Moldova.

Thursday 30 April 2009 at 10 a.m.

Statement by Mr Hammarberg

Mr ELZINGA (Netherlands).On behalf of the group – Mr Hammarberg seeks our advice but I would like to ask his, as he is well known for his wisdom and quick and complete response on human rights violations. Last year, he also visited my country, the Netherlands. He was critical, as always, towards both new and old member states; he does not discriminate. As we know, the Assembly mainly monitors new member states. Does the Commissioner have any suggestions for us on how to be less discriminatory? Perhaps he could give his view on the President of Finland’s suggestion that we should monitor in a more automatic way.

THE PRESIDENT. – Would you like to answer that question, Mr Hammarberg?

Mr HAMMARBERG. – I certainly do not want to meddle in your working procedures. However, I support the advice of the Finnish President – it would be useful to have more thematic monitoring. Many of the problems that we are dealing with relate to many of the countries in the Council of Europe. It might be more effective to avoid portraying a certain country as the only problem when it comes to the issue that we are discussing. So I do support the idea of thematic reports.

Communication from the Committee of Ministers: Mr Miguel Ángel Moratinos, Minister for Foreign Affairs and Co-operation of Spain, Chairperson of the Committee of Ministers

Mr KOX (Netherlands). On behalf of the group – Yes, Mr President. As you can see, the Unified European Left is not always that disciplined, but I know the question we would like to pose.

We have seen the arrival in the past months of many people from Africa. How do we ensure that Europe does not increasingly become a fortress that excludes people, but that Europe’s prosperity is used to improve the situation of such people, so that they do not have to come to Europe to share in such prosperity?

THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you. Would you like to answer, Mr Moratinos?

Mr MORATINOS. – We are extremely aware of the challenge of the new movement of people coming from sub-Saharan Africa. I can tell you that the figures for Spain for the first part of 2009 show a decrease, not an increase, in migration. Why? I think the answer is that, two years ago, Africans and Europeans together took a new approach to regulating migration and to addressing this important challenge. Our response has been one of co-responsibility, taking into account the three dimensions of the problem. The first is to give rights and protections to all illegal immigrants living in Europe. The second is to combat together the illegal trafficking of human beings. The third and most important dimension is addressing the main challenge, the root cause of the situation: poverty and lack of hope for the population of sub-Saharan Africa. We have to mobilise together to make the 21st century the century in which we eradicate hunger and poverty in the world. If we do not succeed in that regard, all manner of other measures should be adopted to give people dignity and a better life.

Mr LOTMAN (Estonia). – Thank you, dear Minister, for mentioning two important issues in your speech – counter-terrorism activities and human rights. The Council of Europe has repeatedly stated that state authorities, in fighting terrorism, must also respect human rights. The UN Special Rapporteur has expressed his concern about some aspects of legislation and practice in your country regarding pre-trial treatment of terrorist suspects. Does your government have any plans to meet those concerns? Thank you.

THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you. Would you like to reply, Mr Moratinos?

Mr MORATINOS said he should emphasise the Assembly’s excellent work in the field of combating terrorism. The Council of Europe was a point of reference and source of resolution in the approach towards that aim. There was a need to defend common values in relation to human rights and the rule of law. Radicals were seeking to destabilise democratic societies. The Spanish Government was promoting strongly a global strategy against terrorism. In Madrid, on 12 May, there would be the first meeting of the signatory states of the Convention on the Prevention of Terrorism

Draft Protocol No. 14 bis to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms

Mr KOX (Netherlands).On behalf of the group – The European Court of Human Rights is rightly seen as the crown jewel of the Council of Europe. It provides a unique open door allowing 800 million Europeans to seek justice when there are no means left at home. No such institution exists anywhere else, which gives us reason to be proud, to celebrate the Court’s 50th anniversary, and to complement President Costa and his team on all the work that they are doing.

The Court is far better known than the other institutions of the Council of Europe. There is nothing wrong with that, although a bit more visibility for the Assembly would not be too bad. Since 1959, hundreds of thousands of European citizens have appealed to the Court, and they have been given justice. That is an enormous achievement. However, the crown jewel of the Council of Europe loses much of its attraction when we see how many people are waiting for justice. As the rapporteur said, there are more than 100 000 cases pending, and the average waiting time is as long as eight years. I think the rapporteur will agree that that is shameful. We should stress that constantly, especially when we are here, because it is, at least in part, a political problem, which we can solve in our parliaments and governments. I assume that the rapporteur agrees with that as well. We could, at least, ease the problem of people queuing before the Court – not literally, at the other side of the canal, but queuing nevertheless.

We thought that Protocol No. 14 would be part of the solution, but owing to the Russian Duma’s refusal to ratify it, that solution cannot come into force. I call on Russian politicians who claim to share the values of the Council of Europe and the Convention to overcome the difficulties at home, and ratify the protocol without further delay. As long as that does not happen, however – and it seems unlikely to happen in the near future – we must seek other solutions, and Protocol No. 14 bis could be one of them.

I congratulate the Committee of Ministers on their creative answer to the problem. That is what politicians should do instead of coming up with creative problems. I also salute the rapporteur for a comprehensive report and draft opinion. Any step that can be taken to help to shorten the queue of citizens seeking justice should be supported by the Assembly.

I have two final critical remarks to make. First, Protocols Nos. 14 and 14 bis are only part of the solution. Far more needs to be done. It is very easy to blame the Russians, but even if they were more co-operative, we would still have a problem, although it would be a slightly smaller problem. Much more has to be done to make this crown jewel shine again. We can do a great deal here in Strasbourg, but most of the work must be done at home. If we really want to see fewer people appealing to the Court, we should structurally improve the judicial system at home. The main reason why people seek justice in Strasbourg is the fact that they cannot find it at home.

We should endorse this excellent report and draft opinion, and recognise that we must do more at home. We have discussed this matter here for years, but the improvements made at home are not as good as they could have been.

Thursday 30 April 2009 at 2 p.m.

Growing food and fuel

Mr LOTMAN (Estonia). On behalf of the group – Dear colleagues – those of you who are brave and persistent enough to still be here – to get proper answers, you have to ask the right questions. “ Growing food or fuel?” is a question sometimes asked in a dramatic way worthy of the Prince of Denmark, but it is clearly not a prudent question. I am therefore glad that the title of this report has evolved to “ Growing food and fuel” . I congratulate the rapporteur on that.

The report is generally balanced and cools down some excessive enthusiasm regarding the potential of agricultural biofuels to solve our manifold energy-related problems. Indeed, if stupidly produced, agrofuels create more environmental, social and economic problems than they solve. In the worst cases, their production can use more fossil energy than it actually replaces in the final consumption, thus becoming a perfect example of the phenomenon known as greenwash. Creating large-scale oil palm plantations by means of clearing primary rain forest is a clear example.

However, the answer to all these problems is actually found in how we produce fuel. There is a lot of talk about “ second generation” these days; this is good but slightly too dramatic. Today, the devil is often in the detail. For example, the carbon and energy balance of an agrofuel is very much dependent on fertiliser use, as mineral fertiliser production is a very energy-intensive industrial process. It has been calculated that rapeseed oil produced in the modern, so-called conventional way – with massive use of mineral fertilisers – is actually a net carbon loser and as such an example of greenwash. However, a simple shift to organic fertiliser makes it a carbon saver, albeit not a very dramatic one. Of course, things are not always so simple, but there are some rules of thumb, such as life-cycle analysis of carbon balance, checking the impact on biodiversity and water consumption, and assessing interactions with existing agricultural systems.

The actual answer to food and fuel production is, therefore, to not view it as a dilemma. We have to avoid generalisations that are too broad, leading to over-simplification of the subject. Agricultural biofuels may indeed vary from good examples of sustainable development to perfect examples of environmental and socio-economic disaster. In this age of ecological crisis, finding ways to support the former and get rid of the latter is a must. We need renewable energy without compromising the safety of food and the environment.