Too early for good news from Greece

Ministers' claims that the economy has "turned a corner" don't bear up to scrutiny.

"Greece has turned a corner" is the general message Yannis Stournaras, the Greek Finance Minister, has been trying to spread in the past few months. Not only "The IMF has praised improvements to Greece's much-maligned tax collection procedures," as the Greek media have been reporting lately, but also, as Stournaras said, "Greece could return to international debt markets by next May." This same line has been at play since late last year, when the Bank of Greece Governor Giorgos Provopoulos stated in an interview with the Financial Times that the worst is over. "Greece could return to the markets in 2014," Stournaras went on. "We've turned a corner".

The international media have tried their hand at this, with Reuters columnist Hugo Dixon writing in his piece The Gloom Around Greece is Dissipating:

Athens now seems on course to achieve 'primary balance' this year. In other words, it will not have a budget deficit before interest payments. That means it probably will not have to implement another round of austerity next year, so the economy will not be struggling against that obstacle.

One might notice there is a quite big maybe in there, standing out. In the same spirit, Yannis Stournaras commented last week in an interview with NET that "this year we managed to make up for two thirds of the fiscal gap, without cutting pensions". Again, Stournaras seems to only be speaking about part of the money Greece will need within 2013 in order to avoid cutting deeper into pensions and public spending, while at the same time admitting that 2013 will be a very difficult year. His view is that unemployment will start falling in 2014.

There are several problems with this, and the unavoidable question arises: is Greece really doing better or is Stournaras simply spinning a positive vibe to soothe the markets and maybe help Merkel and co. look good ahead of the German elections in September? The first issue here would be a whopping €8.2bn the country owes to private companies and contractors. Greece has only managed to make its overall finances look good by stopping payments towards the domestic market. Part of the bailout funds will have to be used in order for this debt to be paid off, but a sense of "too little, too late" is in the air as this delay has strangled many businesses in the past 3 years. A "possible return to the markets" is more like a "necessary exit" as bailout funds run dry next April and additional aid looks unlikely to arrive. Any issues we might face on the road there, lie exclusively with the coalition's financial strategy.

The government's decision to increase taxation on heating oil did not only leave many Greeks unable to heat their homes last winter, but also caused general revenue from taxes to drop by €291m, after consumption fell by 68.7 per cent. Since the beginning of the year, due to this and other tax hikes, tax revenues were lower than the targets set by the government and the Troika in the first three months of 2013.

The most terrifying prospect Greece faces in the next few months though, is the devastating unemployment. Overall unemployment in Greece is now 27 per cent while it goes up to 28.7 per cent in certain regions. In the 18 to 25 age group, unemployment stands at a staggering 64 per cent. To give some perspective, unemployment stood at 21.9 per cent last January, and has more than tripled since the crisis began in 2008. It is likely that it will touch 30 per cent by the end of the year, despite the cuts in wages that now sees those making the minimum wage earning no more than €440 per month after taxes.

It is easy to assume that in his statement, Yannis Stournaras means that unemployment will start falling once it reaches the dreaded 30 per cent. This does little to comfort Greeks. Despite the numbers the government chooses to stress in order to support its position of "light at the end of the tunnel", the very real problems of unemployment, dwindling consumption and political instability are felt by ordinary Greeks. New cuts in wages and pensions are still on the table if Greece doesn’t achieve a primary surplus this year or if, let's be honest, this primary surplus is achieved on shaky grounds and new taxes await within the year.

We've yet to see the Greek government clash and cut its ties with the Greek oligarchs that have refused so far to pay their fair share of the burden. Ship-owners still enjoy scandalous tax-exemptions, while the same people who often found themselves facing charges for cheating the state out of millions (and still owe tens of millions according to the data released by the ministry of finance) appear to still be in business with the ruling New Democracy party. This only stands proof that the government will opt to put even more of that burden on the backs of those already finding themselves in dire position because of this unwillingness.

The ruling coalition and the Troika's spin dominates public discourse in Greece. According to a recent report, the government takes up 63.4 per cent of the time allocated to political parties, while the Troika and its representative’s statements take up 57.2 per cent of the rest. This may be helpful for the financial climate to improve at a superficial level and to make Angela Merkel and Wolfgang Schauble look good while elections draw near (a courtesy Schauble looks unwilling to grant Greece), but it does little in the way of truth.

A harsh summer that will bring hikes in electricity bills will find Greeks once again in discomfort, this time battling the predicted heatwave without access to air-conditioning. Health issues will inevitably arise. And that's only one part of the problem. No matter how much the Greek government wants us to believe things are bound to get better, it does to little to help those who actually need it: the people. If only wishful thinking and PR could replace reality…

Follow Yiannis on twitter @YiannisBab

Greek finance minister Yiannis Stournaras. (Photo: Getty.)

Yiannis Baboulias is a Greek investigative journalist. His work on politics, economics and Greece, appears in the New Statesman, Vice UK and others.

Photo: Getty
Show Hide image

Sheepwrecked: how the Lake District shows up World Heritage's flaws

Here's hoping future statements about farming and the environment aren't quite so sheepish.

“Extremists like George Monbiot would destroy the Lake District,” tweeted Eric Robson, presenter of Radio 4’s Gardener’s Questions. But he’s “just standing up for nature”, others shot back in Monbiot’s defence. The cause of the clash? The park’s new World Heritage status and the continuing debate over the UK’s “sheep-wrecked” countryside.

Tension is such you can almost hear Cumbria’s Vikings chuckling in their hogback graves – for sheep farming still defines the Lakes as much as any poem. Hilltop farmers, like Lizzie Weir and Derek Scrimegeour, have sweated the landscape into shape over generations. And while Wordsworth may have wandered lonely as a cloud, a few hundred pairs of pricked ears were likely ruminating nearby.

UNESCO’s World Heritage committee now officially supports this pro-farm vision: “The most defining feature of the region, which has deeply shaped the cultural landscape, is a long-standing and continuing agro-pastoral tradition,” says the document which recommends the site for approval. 

And there’s much to like about the award: the region’s small, outdoor farms are often embedded in their local community and focused on improving the health and quality of their stock – a welcome reminder of what British farms can do at their best. Plus, with Brexit on the horizon and UK megafarms on the rise, farmers like these need all the spotlight they can get.

But buried in the details of the bid document is a table showing that three-quarters of the area's protected sites are in an “unfavourable condition”. So it is depressing that farming’s impact on biodiversity appears to have been almost entirely overlooked. Whether you agree with the extent of George Monbiot’s vision for Rewilding or not, there are clearly questions about nibbled forests and eroded gullies that need to be addressed – which are not mentioned in the report from UNESCO’s  lead advisory body, ICOMOS, nor the supplementary notes on nature conservation from IUCN.

How could so little scrutiny have been applied? The answer may point to wider problems with the way the World Heritage program presently works – not just in Cumbria but around the world.

In the Lake District’s case, the bid process is set-up to fail nature. When the convention was started back in the 1970s, sites could be nominated under two categories, either “cultural” or “natural”, with the International Council on Monuments and Sites (ICOMOS) advising on the first, and the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) on the second.

Then in 1992 a new category of “cultural landscape” was introduced to recognise places where the “combined works of nature and man” are exceptional. This means such sites are always evaluated principally by ICOMOS, giving them more resources to research and shape the verdict – and limiting the input IUCN is able to make.

Another weakness is that the evaluation bodies can only follow a state’s choice of category. So if a state nominates a site as a Cultural Landscape, then considerations about issues like biodiversity can easily end up taking a back seat.

According to Tim Badman, director of IUCN’s World Heritage Programme, this situation is in need of redress. “The way in which this separation of nature and culture works is increasingly out of tune and counter-productive,” he says. “Every natural site has some kind of relationship with people, and every cultural site has some major conservation interest, even if it might not be globally significant. We should collaborate much more to make that a virtue of the system.”

The more you think about it, the madder the notion of a “Cultural Landscape” sounds. Landscapes are, after all, inherently scoped out by man, and there is little in the natural world that humanity has left untouched. Especially those in Western Europe and especially those, like Cumbria, that have been felled and farmed by a succession of historic invaders.

Relationships between advisory bodies are also not the only failing in UNESCO’s approach; relationships between nations and the convention can be problematic too. At this month’s meeting of the committee in Poland, it was decided that the Great Barrier Reef would, once again – and despite shocking evidence of its decline – not be on UNESCO’s “In Danger” list. It prompts the question, what on earth is the list for?

The reluctance of many nations to have their sites listed as In Danger is a mixed blessing, says Badman. In some cases, the prospect of being listed can motivate reform. But it is also a flawed tool – failing to include costed action plans – and causing some governments to fear attacks from their domestic opposition parties, or a decline in their tourism.

On top of this, there is the more generalised politicking and lobbying that goes on. Professor Lynn Meskell, an Anthropologist at Stanford University, is concerned that, over the years, the institution “has become more and more political”. At the most recent session of the World Heritage Committee earlier this month, she found nominations being used to inflame old conflicts, a continuing regional dominance by Europe, and a failure to open up many “at risk” sites for further discussion. “All Yemen’s sites are in danger, for instance” she says, “yet they couldn’t afford to even send one person."

Perhaps most challenging of all is the body’s response to climate change. At the recent committee gathering, Australia raised the subject by way of suggesting it cannot be held solely be responsible for the decline of the Great Barrier Reef. And Turkey attempted to water down a reference to the Paris Climate Agreement, claiming the language used was overly “technical” and that the delegates present were too inexpert to comment.

According to Tim Badman, climate change is certainly an area that needs further work, not least because World Heritage’s present policy on the subject is now a decade old. Even the most ambitious interpretation of the Paris Climate Agreement would still see very significant damage done to Heritage sites around the world, Badman says.

There is hope of change, however. For the most polite yet sturdy response to Turkey’s objections – or, as the chair ironically puts it “this very small ecological crisis” – I recommend watching these encouraging reactions from Portugal, Phillippines and Finland (2h30) -  a push-back on technical objections that Meskell says is rare to see. IUCN will also be producing the second edition of their World Heritage Outlook this November.

Positions on the Lake District’s farms will also hopefully be given further thought. Flaws within World Heritage’s approach may have helped pull wool over the committee’s eyes, but future debate should avoid being quite so sheepish.

India Bourke is an environment writer and editorial assistant at the New Statesman.