[A million football fans in a city of 120,000 inhabitants--a nightmare for emergency medicine and disaster management? Euro 2008 and the "Orange wonder of Berne"]

The 2008 European Football Championship 2008 (Euro 08) is the largest sporting event ever organized in Switzerland. One million visitors came to the city of Berne during the event and the local airport in Bern/Belp registered 261 extra flights. For each football game there were 33,000 fans in the stadium and 100,000 fans in the public viewing zones.The ambulance corps and the Department of Emergency Medicine (ED) at Inselspital, University Hospital Berne, were responsible for basic medical care and emergency medical management. Injuries and illnesses were analyzed by a standardized score (NACA score). The preparation strategy as well as costs and patient numbers are presented in detail.A total of 30 additional ambulance vehicles were used, 4,723 additional working days (one-third medical professionals) were accumulated, 662 ambulance calls were registered and 240 persons needed medical care (62% Swiss, 28% Dutch and 10% other nationalities). Among those needing treatment 51 were treated in 1 of the 4 city hospitals. No injuries with NACA grades VI and VII occurred (NACA I: 4, NACA II: 17, NACA III: 16, NACA IV: 10 and NACA V: 4 patients). The city of Berne compensated the Inselspital Bern with a total of 112,603 Euros for extra medical care costs. The largest amount was spent on security measures (50,300 Euros) and medical staff (medical doctors 22,600 Euros, nurses 29,000 Euros). Because of the poor weather and the exemplary behavior of the fans, the course of events was rather peaceful.

The WTO and Food Security: What’s Wrong with the Rules?

The WTO Agreement on Agriculture (AoA) is the predominant multilateral legal framework governing agricultural trade. The objective of the AoA is to liberalise trade in agriculture through reductions in tariffs, domestic support and export subsidies. The AoA has not, however, ‘levelled the playing field’ and has not resulted in the equitable distribution of food, particularly for the poorer developing countries. On the other hand, support for small farmers does not ensure food security for the poor. While food security has no simple solutions such as “free trade is good for you”, reform proposals for trade rules which only address agricultural policy instruments fail to account for consumer and other interests: neither tariff reductions and subsidy disciplines, nor safeguards and other measures of producer protection can automatically increase food security. Rather, what is needed is the full and proper implementation of a number of commitments which the international community has already entered into in various human rights treaties, but which even the envisaged results of the now failed Doha Round negotiations could not ensure without revisiting relevant multilateral trade and investment rules.

The story of Community preference for food security

"Préférence communautaire" is an in-built notion of the CAP since its inception with the Treaty of Rome (1957). Its’ simple objective laid down at the Stresa Conference in 1958 is to prefer community produce over imports wherever possible, while at the same time promoting agricultural exports and FDI (“vocation exportatrice de l’Europe”). Does this contrast or correlate with the notion of “food sovereignty” which originated in 1996 as a notion of small farmer self-sufficiency (Via Campesina), and which now has found its way into the official EC discourse? Recent CAP reforms indeed seem to continue banking on border protection and on the occasional export subsidy. Nonetheless, coming together with claims to mitigate climate change, “food sovereignty” à la CAP fails to acknowledge efficiency losses at home and negative spillover effects on the right to food of food exporting developing countries. This chapter asks whether new non-tariff and domestic support measures are just new wine in the old cask of fortress Europe, together with the FDI promotion instruments of the FED and others. Might the increasing dynamics and new challenges of agricultural trade and investment lead to lower market and production shares for European farms? It concludes that in the medium term the WTO Green Box has the only legal and effective tools to promote EU agriculture and food.