PIS propaganda + Glyphosate + De-risking

Dear reader,

Today, a lot revolves around China in Strasbourg. As always during the parliamentary session weeks, the Commission is also meeting on the Rhine and will decide for which critical technologies it will pursue the strategy of de-risking in trade relations with China.

The list will be part of Brussels’ economic security strategy and is expected to include areas of microelectronics, quantum computing, robotics, artificial intelligence, and biotechnology. Vice President Jourová and Commissioner Breton will present the plans. The enumeration is also expected to define an area for possible screening of outbound investments, which would follow the US model in restricting investments in semiconductors or AI, among others.

Also today, two important China-related issues are on the agenda in Parliament: First, MEPs will formally vote on the trade instrument against economic coercion. Secondly, the Commission will have to answer questions on trade relations with the People’s Republic of China. For this purpose, a debate with the EU parliamentarians and a representative of the Commission is scheduled for 3 p.m.

We hope you can enjoy this wonderful late summer day!

Your
Markus Grabitz

Election campaign in Poland: PIS uses anti-German propaganda

Jaroslaw Kaczynski, who has determined Poland’s fate for eight years as leader of the national conservative ruling Law and Justice Party (PiS), repeatedly warns against enemies who have it in for Poland’s sovereignty. All of Europe envies Poland for its economic success – above all its neighbor Germany, the aged politician claims.

In the “election campaign“, Kaczynski tries to stir up fear at every event – and to present his party as the sole savior of Polish statehood. Should opposition leader Donald Tusk come back to power, Poland would once again “fall under the German boot”. Tusk, he said, is a “traitor to the fatherland” who takes orders from Berlin and seeks the “sellout of Polish national assets” to German companies. Kaczynski always complains about German dominance in the EU – which he claims is at Poland’s expense. “Today, the Germans want to achieve by peaceful means what they once would have set out to achieve by military means”, the PiS leader says in reference to World War II.

Targeting the elderly

These anti-German tones go down well with many elderly citizens over 60, who make up more than half of PiS voters. In particular, the demand for reparations for the destruction wrought during World War II, which PiS politicians like to raise, finds support. A year ago, a commission commissioned by the government presented a report that put the amount of losses at €1,300 billion. Kaczynski would like to receive this sum from Germany.

But the legal situation is not as simple as the factless propaganda. Warsaw waived reparations from Germany in 1953 – at the clear request of the “protecting power”, the Soviet Union. The border treaty signed by Germany and Poland in 1990 did not mention reparations either. It may be that Poland was not fairly compensated in comparison with other countries attacked by Germany during WWII, but the fantasy amount of €1,300 billion is absurd. It would bankrupt any country.

PIS deplores German waste tourism

In the PiS narrative, the Germans not only have debts to pay from the past: The Polish government also accuses German recycling companies of illegally dumping their waste in Poland for years. The Environment Ministry filed a complaint against Germany with the EU Commission at the end of July and is seeking proceedings before the European Court of Justice. But the German waste disposal companies refuse to take the waste back – in most cases, they have delivered it to legally existing Polish recycling companies and paid fully for its disposal. Warsaw itself has to deal with its own recycling mafia.

In this election campaign, anti-Ukrainian tones can also be heard for the first time. After the outbreak of the war, Poland opened its doors to Ukrainian refugees. Many have returned or moved on, but around 1.2 million have remained in Poland. The population’s willingness to help is slowly reaching its limits, and the mood is threatening to tip.

Sympathy for Ukraine wanes

Although the majority of Poles (67 percent) are positively disposed toward refugees, approval has fallen by 13 percent since January 2023. At the same time, disapproval of Ukrainians has risen from 8 to 13 percent. For the first time, more than half of Poles (55 percent) oppose additional aid to Ukrainians.

The government is not least to blame for this turn of events. Poland has been blocking imports of Ukrainian grain for over a year – to protect its own producers, as the government claims. In September, Warsaw extended the blockade on its own authority – although the EU decided at the same time to allow imports again. When Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy announced that Poland would be cited in a WTO court for obstructing trade, Poland’s Prime Minister Mateusz Morawiecki threatened to halt arms shipments to Ukraine. “A completely unnecessary escalation that once again portrays Poland as an unreliable partner for both East and West“, judged Radoslaw Sikorski, Poland’s former foreign minister.

PIS gets competition from the extreme right

Several right-wing groups, above all Konfederacja, which is predicted by pollsters to enter parliament, are trying to make their mark in the “election campaign” with anti-Ukrainian propaganda. In their narrative, the Ukrainian is by nature a Poland-eater. They recall at every opportunity the Ukrainian massacres in Volhynia in 1943, in which Ukrainian nationalists brutally murdered some 50,000 to 60,000 Poles. That’s why the well-known politician Janusz Korwin-Mikke says: “Even if there was cannibalism in Russia, I would be in favor of good relations with Russia because I’m afraid of Ukraine gaining power.”

The politicians of Konfederacja warn against the “Ukrainization of Poland”. They accuse the refugees of having come to Poland for economic reasons, since the majority come from areas not affected by the war. The Institute for Media Monitoring in Warsaw counts about 100,000 anti-Ukrainian propaganda posts on the net every month. The narrative continues: Ukrainians come to Poland for a few days to collect Polish social benefits and then return to Ukraine. The posts are often illustrated with photos of fancy cars with Ukrainian license plates.

Myths on the net

A part of Poles believes that Ukrainians are treated better in Poland than their own citizens. It is often said on the net that they receive higher social benefits than Poles – such as free medical care, free bank accounts or credit cards. According to the narrative, Ukrainians also drive up prices in the housing market, so that Poles cannot afford the rents anymore.

Most anti-Ukrainian content is disseminated via X, sometimes by far-right politicians, members of nationalist movements, and anti-vaccination activists. Most posts are anonymous, possibly produced on behalf of Russia. The Kremlin is surely happy if it can divide Poles and Ukrainians. Andzrej Rybak

Glyphosate approval: What the ecologists say

By

Henrike Schirmacher

Glyphosate remains a bone of contention for the time being. The EU Commission is shifting responsibility to the EU member states and squandering the opportunity to introduce harmonized rules for the protection of biodiversity. “The proposal contains several legally non-binding restrictions for member states”, criticizes Viennese researcher Johann Zaller of the University of Natural Resources and Life Sciences in Austria. “Many responsibilities are simply transferred to the member states with the proposal. Given the deplorable state of biodiversity in the member states and the importance they attach to nature conservation, this does not bode well”, Zaller criticizes.

Researcher Maria Finckh of the University of Kassel, head of the Department of Ecological Plant Protection, considers the proposed restrictions an improvement from an EU perspective. Specifically, she mentions the ban on siccation and the minimum five-meter marginal strips in fields, as well as the reference to the risks of admixtures. However, she qualifies that “the latter reference is very imprecise and thus easy to leverage”. For Germany, the restrictions are almost no change to the status quo, Finckh says.

According to the EU Commission’s proposal, the renewed approval of the controversial active ingredient is to be linked to the following restrictions:

Maximum levels for five toxicologically relevant impurities in glyphosate by manufacture are proposed.
Member states need to put a special focus on undesirable effects of the admixtures of the plant protection product.
They need to clarify how much exposure consumers could have to glyphosate residues, which could also be found in subsequent crops.
Attention should also be paid to the protection of groundwater and small herbivorous mammals.
The protection of terrestrial and aquatic plants that could come into contact with glyphosate through so-called spray drift during its application should be ensured.
Indirect effects on biodiversity through food web interactions should be considered and avoided through local regulation where appropriate.
Siccation – treatment immediately before harvesting to speed up ripening, which is already only permitted in Germany in exceptional cases – is to be banned altogether. Furthermore, a non-sprayed buffer strip at least five to ten meters wide is to be left at the edges of the field.

Following the assessment of the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), the EU Commission could have decided differently. In July, the authority based in Parma, Italy, had issued a positive risk assessment for the renewed approval of glyphosate. However, it is clear from its conclusions that although, according to EFSA, there are no critical problem areas that justify a ban on the controversial herbicide, the authority claims there are some data gaps, particularly with regard to biodiversity.

Biodiversity in soils and waters is not taken into account

“The EU Commission’s proposal reveals a systematic denial of the dramatic decline in biodiversity and the scientific knowledge that glyphosate contributes to it”, criticizes Austrian scientist Zaller. He accuses the Brussels authority of “making a mockery of ecological science” and points to the state of studies on the effects of the controversial active ingredient on terrestrial ecosystems.

The proposal does not consider effects on the microbiome or on insects, especially bees, adds researcher Finckh. “Only indirect effects on biodiversity via the food web are mentioned”, Finckh says. In the scientist’s view, the antibiotic effect of glyphosate is the most compelling reason why the active ingredient is problematic: When added to the soil, it damages bacteria and fungi living there or leads to resistant germs, which also include human pathogens that can cause diseases in the human organism. “The result is often dysbiosis: microbiomes that are out of balance, for example in the intestinal flora, but also elsewhere,” says Finckh. With this proposal, the EU Commission is undermining its own efforts to promote permanent soil cover and greening in order to increase overall carbon storage in soils, Finckh continues.

Scientist proposes capping the amount

“I think the proposal is appropriate”, says Christoph Schäfer of the Fraunhofer Institute for Molecular Biology and Applied Ecology, on the other hand. “The essential problem with glyphosate is its use on an extremely large scale. If this is restricted with the help of the new regulation, a lot has already been achieved. Better is no herbicides at all.” To achieve this, he said, there needs to be a change in spatial and temporal crop rotations and undersowing, mechanical methods combined with smart farming, as well as higher producer prices and consumer solidarity.

“Glyphosate is a lightweight in terms of risks, but it is a big driver in terms of quantities applied,” says Horst-Henning Steinmann of the Georg August University of Göttingen. “Maybe we should think about whether a system of a volume cap is feasible.” Then it could be achieved that glyphosate is only applied where it has the greatest benefit and where there is no viable alternative, Steinmann says.

Hoekstra hearing: ENVI delays decision

On late Monday evening, the European Parliament’s Environmental Committee (ENVI) did not clear the path for the appointment of the designated Climate Commissioner, Wopke Hoekstra. Following Hoekstra’s three-hour hearing, the coordinators of the factions postponed their decision on whether to forward their recommendation for the Dutchman to the EU Presidents’ Conference (COP). They now intend to make a decision today, Tuesday at 2 pm, after the ENVI has also questioned the designated Green Deal Commissioner, Maroš Šefčovič.

The Greens, in particular, insisted on the postponement, demanding further answers from Hoekstra. “He tried to please everyone, but when it came to specific proposals, it became scant,” commented the climate policy spokesperson for the Greens, Michael Bloss. “The Climate Commissioner must clarify in a second round that he does not want to combat the Green Deal like the conservatives but aims to further develop it.”

Earlier, during his questioning by the members, Hoekstra announced a minimum 90% CO2 reduction for the European climate target for 2040. Appropriate communication is expected to follow in the first quarter of the upcoming year. He also said he would present an interim goal for 2035, once the global stocktake is carried out at the UN Climate Conference in Dubai (COP28). Additionally, Hoekstra pledged to advocate in Dubai for the end of unabated coal-fired power (“unabated fossil fuels”) and higher ambitions in global CO2 avoidance (Mitigation). Moreover, Hoekstra announced his intention to introduce a kerosene tax. luk

Study: Same yields with one-third less fertilizer possible

According to a study, the use of synthetic fertilizers could be reduced by about one third worldwide without a global decline in yields. This is the result of a study by researchers from the Karlsruhe Institute of Technology (KIT) published in the journal “Communications Earth & Environment”. In their study, the researchers from Karlsruhe look at the three most important cereal varieties corn, wheat, and rice in the period from 2015 to 2030. For the investigation, they use a biogeochemical model developed in-house.

In the paper, the scientists explain what global redistribution would be necessary to save around one-third of artificial fertilizer while maintaining yields. Farmers in regions where nitrogen pollution is currently high – for example in East Asia, North America or Western Europe – would have to use significantly less fertilizer, which would slightly reduce their yields. Farmers in sub-Saharan Africa and Eurasia, on the other hand, where yields per area are currently often much lower, would have to fertilize more. They could achieve higher yields in this way. This would more than compensate for yield losses in other regions, the researchers write.

On the one hand, the scientists expect the model to increase crop yields in regions such as sub-Saharan Africa and thus safeguard the world’s food supply. On the other hand, they point to the reduction of nitrogen pollution of the environment in regions where a lot of fertilizer is used. For Christoph Müller, head of the working group on land use and resilience at the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK), the study results are qualitatively not surprising. The non-linear relationships between yields and nitrogen applications mean that relatively large yield increases per additional unit of nitrogen can be achieved in systems with low nitrogen inputs, Müller said. At the same time, yield increases in systems with high inputs are very low and environmentally harmful emissions are high, he said.

Redistribution only possible under certain conditions

In practice, the scenario presented by the researchers reaches its limits. As the scientists themselves acknowledge, the redistributions would cause shifts in production that would have an economic impact. Christoph Müller of PIK also notes: “Such a redistribution is not possible without significant changes in the framework conditions.” On the one hand, financial incentives would have to be created to use nitrogen in smaller quantities and more efficiently, at least in the regions with high nitrogen allocations, according to Müller. Secondly, it would have to be ensured that nitrogen – and also other nutrients – reach the regions where nutrients are urgently needed to increase yields. To do that, producers would have to be able to afford these inputs. Better links to markets would also be needed.

For Adrian Müller, a researcher in the Department of Agricultural and Food Systems at the Research Institute of Organic Agriculture (FiBL) in Switzerland, such a redistribution has the advantage of making regions that produce relatively little today more food secure and less dependent on food imports. At the same time, he points out that “the increased use of mineral fertilizers in today’s less productive regions creates a new dependency, which is again very susceptible to crises“. heu

Kosovo: London sends reinforcements for Kfor

In response to tensions in northern Kosovo, the UK is providing 200 additional soldiers to reinforce the NATO protection force Kfor on the ground. It is above all a symbolic step. After peaking 20 years ago with nearly 50,000 troops, NATO had long been steadily scaling back its presence. This was done in the hope of a successful dialogue and a rapprochement between Belgrade and Pristina. These hopes are now threatening to be dashed.

The British Ministry of Defence announced that the increase was in response to a request from NATO’s supreme commander, Saceur, for reinforcements. After an initial escalation in May, Turkey had already increased its contingent. Currently, Kfor has a troop strength of 4500 soldiers. In May, Kfor had been caught between the fronts in a confrontation between a Serbian mob and the Kosovo police. Several dozen soldiers from Hungary and Italy were injured.

Is Serbia testing the ‘Crimea model’?

The most recent escalation is clearly more serious, although the background is still not entirely clear. Kosovo’s President Vjosa Osmani accuses Serbia and its President Alexandar Vučić of trying to assert territorial claims in northern Kosovo according to the “Crimea model“. According to the report, the at least 30-strong force of paramilitaries headed by Kosovo Serb Milan Radoičić would have wanted to provoke an incident that would then have justified the invasion of the Serbian army.

That, at least, is one possible scenario. President Vučić at the weekend denied plans for a military incursion into the province formerly controlled by Belgrade. He said Serbia had stationed 14,000 troops near Kosovo last year; currently, there were 7,500 left and they would be reduced to as few as 4,000. The US and EU had recently expressed concern about the troop concentration and called on Belgrade to withdraw soldiers. Vučić has recently appeared to be trying to ease tensions. For example, the president distanced himself from Milan Radoičić, a long-time confidant and governor in northern Kosovo.

EU calls on Serbia to cooperate

The lawyer of the paramilitary and shady businessman stressed during an appearance before the media in Belgrade that his client had acted on his own initiative. Milan Radoičić was spotted in the Serbian capital and was not bothered by the police. The Serbian president also rejected accusations by Kosovo’s Prime Minister Albin Kurti that the paramilitaries had trained at a Serbian army base. They take the troop concentration and the large number of weapons left behind by the paramilitaries “very seriously”, Peter Stano, spokesman for EU foreign affairs envoy Josep Borrell, said Monday. All the facts must be on the table, he said, and the EU expects Serbia’s full cooperation.

The EU is struggling to condemn Serbia even after the bloody confrontation between Kosovo’s police and Serbian paramilitaries. At least eight EU states, however, reportedly urged the imposition of punitive measures against Belgrade during a discussion last week with Borrell. They said there was enough evidence that the Serbian state had been involved in the “terrorist attack” in which a Kosovo policeman was shot dead and four paramilitaries died last week. EU diplomats said Germany was not among the group pushing for a tougher stance against Serbia. The EU imposed punitive measures against the government in Pristina before the summer. In Belgrade, observers do not rule out the possibility that Vučić stoked tensions with Kosovo with an eye toward early elections, which are scheduled for Dec. 17. Serbia’s president is under pressure at home, partly because of the poor economic situation the country is in. sti

Foreign ministers visit Kyiv and promise support

EU foreign ministers assured Ukraine of their continued support at a surprise informal meeting in Kyiv on Monday. German Minister Annalena Baerbock, speaking at the first meeting of the 27 chief diplomats and EU foreign affairs envoy Josep Borrell outside the EU, advocated helping Ukraine through the winter in the face of Russian attacks. “Ukraine needs a winter umbrella”, the Green Party politician said. This includes strengthening air defenses and energy supplies in Ukraine and supplying more generators, she said.

The foreign ministers also met Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy. The EU meeting took place at a time of controversy in the US between Republicans and Democrats in Congress over whether to continue billions in military aid to Ukraine. On Sunday, the party of left-wing and pro-Russian former Prime Minister Robert Fico also became the strongest force in the EU country of Slovakia. Fico had announced that he wanted to end his country’s military aid to Ukraine. However, he affirmed on Monday that, as head of the Slovak government, he also wanted to continue humanitarian aid and the reconstruction of Ukraine.

“We do not feel that US support has been shaken. The United States understands that there is much more at stake in Ukraine than just Ukraine”, Ukrainian Foreign Minister Dmytro Kuleba said at a meeting with Borrell. And in Slovakia, Fico has yet to form a coalition with other parties, he added. Borrell called the meeting a historic first. He had proposed an EU spending package for Kyiv of up to €5 billion for 2024. rtr

‘The EU should prepare for climate migration within’

By Benjamin Schraven

This summer, Europe groaned under record temperatures; there were severe storms and floods, as recently in Greece and Libya. The climate crisis has long been part of our everyday lives – and many people are very worried about its effects. More than a few voices in politics and the media repeatedly warn of millions of “climate refugees” from Africa and other regions of the Global South who could soon be streaming into Europe.

Even independently of global warming, the migration debate – eight years after the refugee crisis – is currently shaping politics once again. German municipalities are complaining about being overwhelmed, German politicians are arguing about border controls and upper limits. On the Italian island of Lampedusa, EU Commission President Ursula von der Leyen and Italy’s Prime Minister Georgia Meloni recently presented a ten-point plan against irregular immigration.

No rush of climate refugees to Europe’s external borders

The climate crisis is likely to intensify migration movements. But is the scenario of a gigantic, climate-induced migration movement toward Europe at all valid? And what would an appropriate political approach to the challenges of “climate migration” look like?

Let me say it straight away: A rush of climate refugees to Europe’s external borders is – even if the current pictures from Lampedusa seem to show otherwise – rather unrealistic. This is because research on the connection between climate change and migration concludes that migration and flight movements in connection with climate impacts happen almost exclusively within the affected countries and regions.

In general, people in the Global South migrate primarily intraregionally: In West Africa, for example, the share of migration within the region is around 90 percent, according to the International Organization for Migration (IOM). The majority of those most affected by the climate crisis are poor people such as small farmers, who lack the necessary means to migrate to Europe.

Climate impacts rob resources to migrate

Moreover, the relationship between climate and human migration is by no means a simple arithmetic that could be calculated with a formula à la “0.1-degree Celsius increase in global average temperature results in x million climate refugees”. Migration and flight processes are complex. They are influenced by political, social or economic factors, even in areas already severely affected by the climate crisis today. In addition, climate impacts frequently lead to people being more likely to lose mobility as they lose important resources.

Therefore, the supposed threat of a climate-related mega-refugee crisis tends to distract from the real challenges posed by climate change and the resulting migration.

Overlooked danger: climate refugees within Europe

On the one hand, we in Europe must prepare ourselves for the fact that many people will also have to leave their homes here starting around the middle of the 21st century. The expected rise in sea level alone will put millions of people in coastal areas of Europe at risk. Even if this danger may not seem so acute today, politicians and societies must think about how they can meet this gigantic challenge.

So far, there seems to be a lack of concern in this regard. Of course, European countries and regions are already planning their longer-term adaptation options. But what if, for example, sea levels rise more than previously assumed after 2050? What if adaptation is no longer technically or financially affordable for certain areas and people have to leave permanently? For these resettlement measures, there must be a comprehensive and well-thought-out dialog and planning process that aims to minimize social and economic losses for all stakeholders. Setting it in motion is a mammoth task for governments and authorities.

More conflict and instability in the Global South?

But the processes of flight and migration that are taking place in the context of the climate crisis within other parts of the world also have an impact on us in Europe. It is true that the interrelationships are complex. But both the consequences of climate change itself and the migration movements it is helping to cause pose major challenges for many countries in the Global South. They also increase the potential for more conflict and instability. This cannot be in Europe’s best interest.

International forums, processes and organizations, as well as national governments or development policy organizations, have been addressing climate migration for some time – especially in affected regions of the world, such as the Caribbean or the Horn of Africa. Their activities often aim to create a common awareness of the problem among decision-makers and to initiate a political dialogue. Europe’s obligation in this regard is not limited to geostrategic considerations; as one of the main contributors to man-made climate change, it also has an ethical obligation.

Concrete support for climate action

Specifically, this support from the EU and its member states must cover five areas:

The European Union, Germany, and other European countries should provide large-scale support for climate mitigation and adaptation activities in the Global South. To suggest the scale required: Developing countries demanded at the last World Climate Summit that industrialized countries double their (so far unfulfilled) pledge to support climate mitigation and adaptation in poorer countries to the tune of $100 billion annually by 2020.
The willingness of European and German businesses to invest, especially in the “green economy” in African, Asian or Latin American countries, could be increased through special Hermes guarantees.
In the area of flight and migration, much more still needs to be invested in support measures for people and communities in the countries particularly affected. Support is needed not only in the accommodation, care and integration of refugees, but also in the planning and implementation of free movement agreements or resettlement measures.
Since cities in particular are centers of immigration, refuge and population growth, it is essential to expand urban infrastructures to make them more robust against climate change. Many cities in the global south, for example, are increasingly suffering from flooding as a result of heavy rainfall – relief here comes from the consistent expansion of canals and retention basins or the renaturation of river and stream courses.
Finally, in addition to the military commitment to peacekeeping, there are also possibilities for civil crisis prevention and conflict management – for example, through preventive diplomacy or broad-based dialogue forums, which should be strengthened

Prepare for more climate migration at home, and at the same time better support partner countries in the Global South in the climate crisis so that people there do not have to leave their homes: That would be a good way to deal with climate migration politically.

Benjamin Schraven is Associate Scientist of the German Institute of Development and Sustainability (IDOS) and has recently published a book on the topic of climate migration.

EUROPE.TABLE EDITORS

Till
Hoppe

Charlotte
Wirth

Falk
Steiner

Timo
Landenberger

Corinna
Visser

Lukas
Knigge

Eric
Bonse

Sarah
Schaefer

Manuel
Berkel

Lisa-Martina
Klein

Markus
Grabitz

Stephan
Israel

Claire
Stam

Dear reader,

Today, a lot revolves around China in Strasbourg. As always during the parliamentary session weeks, the Commission is also meeting on the Rhine and will decide for which critical technologies it will pursue the strategy of de-risking in trade relations with China.

The list will be part of Brussels’ economic security strategy and is expected to include areas of microelectronics, quantum computing, robotics, artificial intelligence, and biotechnology. Vice President Jourová and Commissioner Breton will present the plans. The enumeration is also expected to define an area for possible screening of outbound investments, which would follow the US model in restricting investments in semiconductors or AI, among others.

Also today, two important China-related issues are on the agenda in Parliament: First, MEPs will formally vote on the trade instrument against economic coercion. Secondly, the Commission will have to answer questions on trade relations with the People’s Republic of China. For this purpose, a debate with the EU parliamentarians and a representative of the Commission is scheduled for 3 p.m.

We hope you can enjoy this wonderful late summer day!

Your
Markus Grabitz

Election campaign in Poland: PIS uses anti-German propaganda

Jaroslaw Kaczynski, who has determined Poland’s fate for eight years as leader of the national conservative ruling Law and Justice Party (PiS), repeatedly warns against enemies who have it in for Poland’s sovereignty. All of Europe envies Poland for its economic success – above all its neighbor Germany, the aged politician claims.

In the “election campaign“, Kaczynski tries to stir up fear at every event – and to present his party as the sole savior of Polish statehood. Should opposition leader Donald Tusk come back to power, Poland would once again “fall under the German boot”. Tusk, he said, is a “traitor to the fatherland” who takes orders from Berlin and seeks the “sellout of Polish national assets” to German companies. Kaczynski always complains about German dominance in the EU – which he claims is at Poland’s expense. “Today, the Germans want to achieve by peaceful means what they once would have set out to achieve by military means”, the PiS leader says in reference to World War II.

Targeting the elderly

These anti-German tones go down well with many elderly citizens over 60, who make up more than half of PiS voters. In particular, the demand for reparations for the destruction wrought during World War II, which PiS politicians like to raise, finds support. A year ago, a commission commissioned by the government presented a report that put the amount of losses at €1,300 billion. Kaczynski would like to receive this sum from Germany.

But the legal situation is not as simple as the factless propaganda. Warsaw waived reparations from Germany in 1953 – at the clear request of the “protecting power”, the Soviet Union. The border treaty signed by Germany and Poland in 1990 did not mention reparations either. It may be that Poland was not fairly compensated in comparison with other countries attacked by Germany during WWII, but the fantasy amount of €1,300 billion is absurd. It would bankrupt any country.

PIS deplores German waste tourism

In the PiS narrative, the Germans not only have debts to pay from the past: The Polish government also accuses German recycling companies of illegally dumping their waste in Poland for years. The Environment Ministry filed a complaint against Germany with the EU Commission at the end of July and is seeking proceedings before the European Court of Justice. But the German waste disposal companies refuse to take the waste back – in most cases, they have delivered it to legally existing Polish recycling companies and paid fully for its disposal. Warsaw itself has to deal with its own recycling mafia.

In this election campaign, anti-Ukrainian tones can also be heard for the first time. After the outbreak of the war, Poland opened its doors to Ukrainian refugees. Many have returned or moved on, but around 1.2 million have remained in Poland. The population’s willingness to help is slowly reaching its limits, and the mood is threatening to tip.

Sympathy for Ukraine wanes

Although the majority of Poles (67 percent) are positively disposed toward refugees, approval has fallen by 13 percent since January 2023. At the same time, disapproval of Ukrainians has risen from 8 to 13 percent. For the first time, more than half of Poles (55 percent) oppose additional aid to Ukrainians.

The government is not least to blame for this turn of events. Poland has been blocking imports of Ukrainian grain for over a year – to protect its own producers, as the government claims. In September, Warsaw extended the blockade on its own authority – although the EU decided at the same time to allow imports again. When Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy announced that Poland would be cited in a WTO court for obstructing trade, Poland’s Prime Minister Mateusz Morawiecki threatened to halt arms shipments to Ukraine. “A completely unnecessary escalation that once again portrays Poland as an unreliable partner for both East and West“, judged Radoslaw Sikorski, Poland’s former foreign minister.

PIS gets competition from the extreme right

Several right-wing groups, above all Konfederacja, which is predicted by pollsters to enter parliament, are trying to make their mark in the “election campaign” with anti-Ukrainian propaganda. In their narrative, the Ukrainian is by nature a Poland-eater. They recall at every opportunity the Ukrainian massacres in Volhynia in 1943, in which Ukrainian nationalists brutally murdered some 50,000 to 60,000 Poles. That’s why the well-known politician Janusz Korwin-Mikke says: “Even if there was cannibalism in Russia, I would be in favor of good relations with Russia because I’m afraid of Ukraine gaining power.”

The politicians of Konfederacja warn against the “Ukrainization of Poland”. They accuse the refugees of having come to Poland for economic reasons, since the majority come from areas not affected by the war. The Institute for Media Monitoring in Warsaw counts about 100,000 anti-Ukrainian propaganda posts on the net every month. The narrative continues: Ukrainians come to Poland for a few days to collect Polish social benefits and then return to Ukraine. The posts are often illustrated with photos of fancy cars with Ukrainian license plates.

Myths on the net

A part of Poles believes that Ukrainians are treated better in Poland than their own citizens. It is often said on the net that they receive higher social benefits than Poles – such as free medical care, free bank accounts or credit cards. According to the narrative, Ukrainians also drive up prices in the housing market, so that Poles cannot afford the rents anymore.

Most anti-Ukrainian content is disseminated via X, sometimes by far-right politicians, members of nationalist movements, and anti-vaccination activists. Most posts are anonymous, possibly produced on behalf of Russia. The Kremlin is surely happy if it can divide Poles and Ukrainians. Andzrej Rybak

Glyphosate approval: What the ecologists say

By

Henrike Schirmacher

Glyphosate remains a bone of contention for the time being. The EU Commission is shifting responsibility to the EU member states and squandering the opportunity to introduce harmonized rules for the protection of biodiversity. “The proposal contains several legally non-binding restrictions for member states”, criticizes Viennese researcher Johann Zaller of the University of Natural Resources and Life Sciences in Austria. “Many responsibilities are simply transferred to the member states with the proposal. Given the deplorable state of biodiversity in the member states and the importance they attach to nature conservation, this does not bode well”, Zaller criticizes.

Researcher Maria Finckh of the University of Kassel, head of the Department of Ecological Plant Protection, considers the proposed restrictions an improvement from an EU perspective. Specifically, she mentions the ban on siccation and the minimum five-meter marginal strips in fields, as well as the reference to the risks of admixtures. However, she qualifies that “the latter reference is very imprecise and thus easy to leverage”. For Germany, the restrictions are almost no change to the status quo, Finckh says.

According to the EU Commission’s proposal, the renewed approval of the controversial active ingredient is to be linked to the following restrictions:

Maximum levels for five toxicologically relevant impurities in glyphosate by manufacture are proposed.
Member states need to put a special focus on undesirable effects of the admixtures of the plant protection product.
They need to clarify how much exposure consumers could have to glyphosate residues, which could also be found in subsequent crops.
Attention should also be paid to the protection of groundwater and small herbivorous mammals.
The protection of terrestrial and aquatic plants that could come into contact with glyphosate through so-called spray drift during its application should be ensured.
Indirect effects on biodiversity through food web interactions should be considered and avoided through local regulation where appropriate.
Siccation – treatment immediately before harvesting to speed up ripening, which is already only permitted in Germany in exceptional cases – is to be banned altogether. Furthermore, a non-sprayed buffer strip at least five to ten meters wide is to be left at the edges of the field.

Following the assessment of the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), the EU Commission could have decided differently. In July, the authority based in Parma, Italy, had issued a positive risk assessment for the renewed approval of glyphosate. However, it is clear from its conclusions that although, according to EFSA, there are no critical problem areas that justify a ban on the controversial herbicide, the authority claims there are some data gaps, particularly with regard to biodiversity.

Biodiversity in soils and waters is not taken into account

“The EU Commission’s proposal reveals a systematic denial of the dramatic decline in biodiversity and the scientific knowledge that glyphosate contributes to it”, criticizes Austrian scientist Zaller. He accuses the Brussels authority of “making a mockery of ecological science” and points to the state of studies on the effects of the controversial active ingredient on terrestrial ecosystems.

The proposal does not consider effects on the microbiome or on insects, especially bees, adds researcher Finckh. “Only indirect effects on biodiversity via the food web are mentioned”, Finckh says. In the scientist’s view, the antibiotic effect of glyphosate is the most compelling reason why the active ingredient is problematic: When added to the soil, it damages bacteria and fungi living there or leads to resistant germs, which also include human pathogens that can cause diseases in the human organism. “The result is often dysbiosis: microbiomes that are out of balance, for example in the intestinal flora, but also elsewhere,” says Finckh. With this proposal, the EU Commission is undermining its own efforts to promote permanent soil cover and greening in order to increase overall carbon storage in soils, Finckh continues.

Scientist proposes capping the amount

“I think the proposal is appropriate”, says Christoph Schäfer of the Fraunhofer Institute for Molecular Biology and Applied Ecology, on the other hand. “The essential problem with glyphosate is its use on an extremely large scale. If this is restricted with the help of the new regulation, a lot has already been achieved. Better is no herbicides at all.” To achieve this, he said, there needs to be a change in spatial and temporal crop rotations and undersowing, mechanical methods combined with smart farming, as well as higher producer prices and consumer solidarity.

“Glyphosate is a lightweight in terms of risks, but it is a big driver in terms of quantities applied,” says Horst-Henning Steinmann of the Georg August University of Göttingen. “Maybe we should think about whether a system of a volume cap is feasible.” Then it could be achieved that glyphosate is only applied where it has the greatest benefit and where there is no viable alternative, Steinmann says.

Hoekstra hearing: ENVI delays decision

On late Monday evening, the European Parliament’s Environmental Committee (ENVI) did not clear the path for the appointment of the designated Climate Commissioner, Wopke Hoekstra. Following Hoekstra’s three-hour hearing, the coordinators of the factions postponed their decision on whether to forward their recommendation for the Dutchman to the EU Presidents’ Conference (COP). They now intend to make a decision today, Tuesday at 2 pm, after the ENVI has also questioned the designated Green Deal Commissioner, Maroš Šefčovič.

The Greens, in particular, insisted on the postponement, demanding further answers from Hoekstra. “He tried to please everyone, but when it came to specific proposals, it became scant,” commented the climate policy spokesperson for the Greens, Michael Bloss. “The Climate Commissioner must clarify in a second round that he does not want to combat the Green Deal like the conservatives but aims to further develop it.”

Earlier, during his questioning by the members, Hoekstra announced a minimum 90% CO2 reduction for the European climate target for 2040. Appropriate communication is expected to follow in the first quarter of the upcoming year. He also said he would present an interim goal for 2035, once the global stocktake is carried out at the UN Climate Conference in Dubai (COP28). Additionally, Hoekstra pledged to advocate in Dubai for the end of unabated coal-fired power (“unabated fossil fuels”) and higher ambitions in global CO2 avoidance (Mitigation). Moreover, Hoekstra announced his intention to introduce a kerosene tax. luk

Study: Same yields with one-third less fertilizer possible

According to a study, the use of synthetic fertilizers could be reduced by about one third worldwide without a global decline in yields. This is the result of a study by researchers from the Karlsruhe Institute of Technology (KIT) published in the journal “Communications Earth & Environment”. In their study, the researchers from Karlsruhe look at the three most important cereal varieties corn, wheat, and rice in the period from 2015 to 2030. For the investigation, they use a biogeochemical model developed in-house.

In the paper, the scientists explain what global redistribution would be necessary to save around one-third of artificial fertilizer while maintaining yields. Farmers in regions where nitrogen pollution is currently high – for example in East Asia, North America or Western Europe – would have to use significantly less fertilizer, which would slightly reduce their yields. Farmers in sub-Saharan Africa and Eurasia, on the other hand, where yields per area are currently often much lower, would have to fertilize more. They could achieve higher yields in this way. This would more than compensate for yield losses in other regions, the researchers write.

On the one hand, the scientists expect the model to increase crop yields in regions such as sub-Saharan Africa and thus safeguard the world’s food supply. On the other hand, they point to the reduction of nitrogen pollution of the environment in regions where a lot of fertilizer is used. For Christoph Müller, head of the working group on land use and resilience at the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK), the study results are qualitatively not surprising. The non-linear relationships between yields and nitrogen applications mean that relatively large yield increases per additional unit of nitrogen can be achieved in systems with low nitrogen inputs, Müller said. At the same time, yield increases in systems with high inputs are very low and environmentally harmful emissions are high, he said.

Redistribution only possible under certain conditions

In practice, the scenario presented by the researchers reaches its limits. As the scientists themselves acknowledge, the redistributions would cause shifts in production that would have an economic impact. Christoph Müller of PIK also notes: “Such a redistribution is not possible without significant changes in the framework conditions.” On the one hand, financial incentives would have to be created to use nitrogen in smaller quantities and more efficiently, at least in the regions with high nitrogen allocations, according to Müller. Secondly, it would have to be ensured that nitrogen – and also other nutrients – reach the regions where nutrients are urgently needed to increase yields. To do that, producers would have to be able to afford these inputs. Better links to markets would also be needed.

For Adrian Müller, a researcher in the Department of Agricultural and Food Systems at the Research Institute of Organic Agriculture (FiBL) in Switzerland, such a redistribution has the advantage of making regions that produce relatively little today more food secure and less dependent on food imports. At the same time, he points out that “the increased use of mineral fertilizers in today’s less productive regions creates a new dependency, which is again very susceptible to crises“. heu

Kosovo: London sends reinforcements for Kfor

In response to tensions in northern Kosovo, the UK is providing 200 additional soldiers to reinforce the NATO protection force Kfor on the ground. It is above all a symbolic step. After peaking 20 years ago with nearly 50,000 troops, NATO had long been steadily scaling back its presence. This was done in the hope of a successful dialogue and a rapprochement between Belgrade and Pristina. These hopes are now threatening to be dashed.

The British Ministry of Defence announced that the increase was in response to a request from NATO’s supreme commander, Saceur, for reinforcements. After an initial escalation in May, Turkey had already increased its contingent. Currently, Kfor has a troop strength of 4500 soldiers. In May, Kfor had been caught between the fronts in a confrontation between a Serbian mob and the Kosovo police. Several dozen soldiers from Hungary and Italy were injured.

Is Serbia testing the ‘Crimea model’?

The most recent escalation is clearly more serious, although the background is still not entirely clear. Kosovo’s President Vjosa Osmani accuses Serbia and its President Alexandar Vučić of trying to assert territorial claims in northern Kosovo according to the “Crimea model“. According to the report, the at least 30-strong force of paramilitaries headed by Kosovo Serb Milan Radoičić would have wanted to provoke an incident that would then have justified the invasion of the Serbian army.

That, at least, is one possible scenario. President Vučić at the weekend denied plans for a military incursion into the province formerly controlled by Belgrade. He said Serbia had stationed 14,000 troops near Kosovo last year; currently, there were 7,500 left and they would be reduced to as few as 4,000. The US and EU had recently expressed concern about the troop concentration and called on Belgrade to withdraw soldiers. Vučić has recently appeared to be trying to ease tensions. For example, the president distanced himself from Milan Radoičić, a long-time confidant and governor in northern Kosovo.

EU calls on Serbia to cooperate

The lawyer of the paramilitary and shady businessman stressed during an appearance before the media in Belgrade that his client had acted on his own initiative. Milan Radoičić was spotted in the Serbian capital and was not bothered by the police. The Serbian president also rejected accusations by Kosovo’s Prime Minister Albin Kurti that the paramilitaries had trained at a Serbian army base. They take the troop concentration and the large number of weapons left behind by the paramilitaries “very seriously”, Peter Stano, spokesman for EU foreign affairs envoy Josep Borrell, said Monday. All the facts must be on the table, he said, and the EU expects Serbia’s full cooperation.

The EU is struggling to condemn Serbia even after the bloody confrontation between Kosovo’s police and Serbian paramilitaries. At least eight EU states, however, reportedly urged the imposition of punitive measures against Belgrade during a discussion last week with Borrell. They said there was enough evidence that the Serbian state had been involved in the “terrorist attack” in which a Kosovo policeman was shot dead and four paramilitaries died last week. EU diplomats said Germany was not among the group pushing for a tougher stance against Serbia. The EU imposed punitive measures against the government in Pristina before the summer. In Belgrade, observers do not rule out the possibility that Vučić stoked tensions with Kosovo with an eye toward early elections, which are scheduled for Dec. 17. Serbia’s president is under pressure at home, partly because of the poor economic situation the country is in. sti

Foreign ministers visit Kyiv and promise support

EU foreign ministers assured Ukraine of their continued support at a surprise informal meeting in Kyiv on Monday. German Minister Annalena Baerbock, speaking at the first meeting of the 27 chief diplomats and EU foreign affairs envoy Josep Borrell outside the EU, advocated helping Ukraine through the winter in the face of Russian attacks. “Ukraine needs a winter umbrella”, the Green Party politician said. This includes strengthening air defenses and energy supplies in Ukraine and supplying more generators, she said.

The foreign ministers also met Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy. The EU meeting took place at a time of controversy in the US between Republicans and Democrats in Congress over whether to continue billions in military aid to Ukraine. On Sunday, the party of left-wing and pro-Russian former Prime Minister Robert Fico also became the strongest force in the EU country of Slovakia. Fico had announced that he wanted to end his country’s military aid to Ukraine. However, he affirmed on Monday that, as head of the Slovak government, he also wanted to continue humanitarian aid and the reconstruction of Ukraine.

“We do not feel that US support has been shaken. The United States understands that there is much more at stake in Ukraine than just Ukraine”, Ukrainian Foreign Minister Dmytro Kuleba said at a meeting with Borrell. And in Slovakia, Fico has yet to form a coalition with other parties, he added. Borrell called the meeting a historic first. He had proposed an EU spending package for Kyiv of up to €5 billion for 2024. rtr

‘The EU should prepare for climate migration within’

By Benjamin Schraven

This summer, Europe groaned under record temperatures; there were severe storms and floods, as recently in Greece and Libya. The climate crisis has long been part of our everyday lives – and many people are very worried about its effects. More than a few voices in politics and the media repeatedly warn of millions of “climate refugees” from Africa and other regions of the Global South who could soon be streaming into Europe.

Even independently of global warming, the migration debate – eight years after the refugee crisis – is currently shaping politics once again. German municipalities are complaining about being overwhelmed, German politicians are arguing about border controls and upper limits. On the Italian island of Lampedusa, EU Commission President Ursula von der Leyen and Italy’s Prime Minister Georgia Meloni recently presented a ten-point plan against irregular immigration.

No rush of climate refugees to Europe’s external borders

The climate crisis is likely to intensify migration movements. But is the scenario of a gigantic, climate-induced migration movement toward Europe at all valid? And what would an appropriate political approach to the challenges of “climate migration” look like?

Let me say it straight away: A rush of climate refugees to Europe’s external borders is – even if the current pictures from Lampedusa seem to show otherwise – rather unrealistic. This is because research on the connection between climate change and migration concludes that migration and flight movements in connection with climate impacts happen almost exclusively within the affected countries and regions.

In general, people in the Global South migrate primarily intraregionally: In West Africa, for example, the share of migration within the region is around 90 percent, according to the International Organization for Migration (IOM). The majority of those most affected by the climate crisis are poor people such as small farmers, who lack the necessary means to migrate to Europe.

Climate impacts rob resources to migrate

Moreover, the relationship between climate and human migration is by no means a simple arithmetic that could be calculated with a formula à la “0.1-degree Celsius increase in global average temperature results in x million climate refugees”. Migration and flight processes are complex. They are influenced by political, social or economic factors, even in areas already severely affected by the climate crisis today. In addition, climate impacts frequently lead to people being more likely to lose mobility as they lose important resources.

Therefore, the supposed threat of a climate-related mega-refugee crisis tends to distract from the real challenges posed by climate change and the resulting migration.

Overlooked danger: climate refugees within Europe

On the one hand, we in Europe must prepare ourselves for the fact that many people will also have to leave their homes here starting around the middle of the 21st century. The expected rise in sea level alone will put millions of people in coastal areas of Europe at risk. Even if this danger may not seem so acute today, politicians and societies must think about how they can meet this gigantic challenge.

So far, there seems to be a lack of concern in this regard. Of course, European countries and regions are already planning their longer-term adaptation options. But what if, for example, sea levels rise more than previously assumed after 2050? What if adaptation is no longer technically or financially affordable for certain areas and people have to leave permanently? For these resettlement measures, there must be a comprehensive and well-thought-out dialog and planning process that aims to minimize social and economic losses for all stakeholders. Setting it in motion is a mammoth task for governments and authorities.

More conflict and instability in the Global South?

But the processes of flight and migration that are taking place in the context of the climate crisis within other parts of the world also have an impact on us in Europe. It is true that the interrelationships are complex. But both the consequences of climate change itself and the migration movements it is helping to cause pose major challenges for many countries in the Global South. They also increase the potential for more conflict and instability. This cannot be in Europe’s best interest.

International forums, processes and organizations, as well as national governments or development policy organizations, have been addressing climate migration for some time – especially in affected regions of the world, such as the Caribbean or the Horn of Africa. Their activities often aim to create a common awareness of the problem among decision-makers and to initiate a political dialogue. Europe’s obligation in this regard is not limited to geostrategic considerations; as one of the main contributors to man-made climate change, it also has an ethical obligation.

Concrete support for climate action

Specifically, this support from the EU and its member states must cover five areas:

The European Union, Germany, and other European countries should provide large-scale support for climate mitigation and adaptation activities in the Global South. To suggest the scale required: Developing countries demanded at the last World Climate Summit that industrialized countries double their (so far unfulfilled) pledge to support climate mitigation and adaptation in poorer countries to the tune of $100 billion annually by 2020.
The willingness of European and German businesses to invest, especially in the “green economy” in African, Asian or Latin American countries, could be increased through special Hermes guarantees.
In the area of flight and migration, much more still needs to be invested in support measures for people and communities in the countries particularly affected. Support is needed not only in the accommodation, care and integration of refugees, but also in the planning and implementation of free movement agreements or resettlement measures.
Since cities in particular are centers of immigration, refuge and population growth, it is essential to expand urban infrastructures to make them more robust against climate change. Many cities in the global south, for example, are increasingly suffering from flooding as a result of heavy rainfall – relief here comes from the consistent expansion of canals and retention basins or the renaturation of river and stream courses.
Finally, in addition to the military commitment to peacekeeping, there are also possibilities for civil crisis prevention and conflict management – for example, through preventive diplomacy or broad-based dialogue forums, which should be strengthened

Prepare for more climate migration at home, and at the same time better support partner countries in the Global South in the climate crisis so that people there do not have to leave their homes: That would be a good way to deal with climate migration politically.

Benjamin Schraven is Associate Scientist of the German Institute of Development and Sustainability (IDOS) and has recently published a book on the topic of climate migration.