Post by buccaneer on Apr 15, 2023 5:50:15 GMT
Are EU deforestation rules about recolonising the Global South?
More imperial hypocrisy from the not-so-level-playing field of the EU.
The EU-DR imposes rules that imports to the EU are not linked to deforestation. Yet, EU degraded peatland isn't included in the EU-DR. This, has very little to do with the environment but more so controlling and regulating imports and holding them to a higher account in the guise of protectionism.
Secondly, the EU has "strict rules on geotagging" and demands EU officials have the rights to know the in's and out's of a ducks ar.se when working with third countries with no regards for their own countries' laws of data privacy. Forcing third country farmers to surrender their data privacy is in violation to the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights.
It's truly remarkable how the EU constantly boast how they are a rule-based-system that seeks a level-playing field in trade. Yet, they will simultaneously will break their own laws and rules so long as it isn't detrimental to their protectionist policy.
euobserver.com/opinion/156902
insert quote hereThe European Union's Deforestation-Free Regulation (or EU-DR) is the new EU tool claimed to address deforestation — by imposing a unilateral rule that obliges companies importing certain goods to certify that such products are not linked to deforestation, after 31 December 2020.
Those targeted products are either in direct competition with the EU's products such as beef, soya, palm oil, and timber products, or not farmed in EU — such as coffee, cocoa, and rubber. The EU-DR has excluded the EU's own degraded and destroyed millions of hectares of peatlands, emitting massive pollution. It is known that rewetting all EU peatland is against EU farming subsidies.
Clearly, the EU-DR is about how to force other nations, especially in the Gobal South, to follow EU rules to protect its own products and is not about real concern of the environment. If it is a genuine concern on the link of farming and environmental degradation, EU drained and degraded peatland should have been included.
The EU unilaterally imposed an obligation of origin-tracing by using geolocation of where the products are farmed. Farmers, including millions of small farmers who own less or around one hectare and living across the Global South should all buy smartphones and geotag their farms to be given, known, processed, verified and inspected by EU officials. Clearly, with no regard of the exporting countries' laws of data privacy.
Meanwhile, EU itself has strict rules on geotagging. Articles 7 and 8 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights provide the legal basis for respect for private life and for the protection of personal data. The landscape of EU data protection across the continent is built upon these "indivisible, universal values," and are translated into two different EU privacy laws: the ePrivacy Directive (ePD) and the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), regulating how data is allowed to be collected, processed and stored.
They empower individuals in EU with such rights as the right-of-prior-consent before having their data processed, right-of-access to their collected data and the right of erasure of their collected data. Clearly, forcing foreign farmers to surrender their data privacy to EU is a violation of fundamental human rights.
Those targeted products are either in direct competition with the EU's products such as beef, soya, palm oil, and timber products, or not farmed in EU — such as coffee, cocoa, and rubber. The EU-DR has excluded the EU's own degraded and destroyed millions of hectares of peatlands, emitting massive pollution. It is known that rewetting all EU peatland is against EU farming subsidies.
Clearly, the EU-DR is about how to force other nations, especially in the Gobal South, to follow EU rules to protect its own products and is not about real concern of the environment. If it is a genuine concern on the link of farming and environmental degradation, EU drained and degraded peatland should have been included.
The EU unilaterally imposed an obligation of origin-tracing by using geolocation of where the products are farmed. Farmers, including millions of small farmers who own less or around one hectare and living across the Global South should all buy smartphones and geotag their farms to be given, known, processed, verified and inspected by EU officials. Clearly, with no regard of the exporting countries' laws of data privacy.
Meanwhile, EU itself has strict rules on geotagging. Articles 7 and 8 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights provide the legal basis for respect for private life and for the protection of personal data. The landscape of EU data protection across the continent is built upon these "indivisible, universal values," and are translated into two different EU privacy laws: the ePrivacy Directive (ePD) and the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), regulating how data is allowed to be collected, processed and stored.
They empower individuals in EU with such rights as the right-of-prior-consent before having their data processed, right-of-access to their collected data and the right of erasure of their collected data. Clearly, forcing foreign farmers to surrender their data privacy to EU is a violation of fundamental human rights.
The EU-DR imposes rules that imports to the EU are not linked to deforestation. Yet, EU degraded peatland isn't included in the EU-DR. This, has very little to do with the environment but more so controlling and regulating imports and holding them to a higher account in the guise of protectionism.
Secondly, the EU has "strict rules on geotagging" and demands EU officials have the rights to know the in's and out's of a ducks ar.se when working with third countries with no regards for their own countries' laws of data privacy. Forcing third country farmers to surrender their data privacy is in violation to the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights.
It's truly remarkable how the EU constantly boast how they are a rule-based-system that seeks a level-playing field in trade. Yet, they will simultaneously will break their own laws and rules so long as it isn't detrimental to their protectionist policy.
euobserver.com/opinion/156902