Greenhouse Malta Opposes Development in ODZ Areas

Greenhouse Malta would like to make it clear that it does not oppose the investment in education. Education is the backbone of any society, and it is essential for the functioning and the prosperity of society. Any investment in education is and will always be welcome.

However the current development at Zonqor point is going to annihilate a grand total of 90,000 square metres. Ecologically speaking, the site hosts different habitats including, garigue, coastal areas and agricultural areas. Furthermore it is home to many different species of flora and fauna, including several birds. Such a development would destroy the little habitat that these species live in.

Another point which has not been stressed enough is that the area of Zonqor point is mostly inaccessible. This means that such a development would also have to include various road networks which would link the University to other areas. This would of course increase the impact of such a project.

The above mentioned factors show that development in Zonqor Point in the form of a University is not sustainable. We expect that this project is held at an alternative site which poses a much smaller harm to the environment.

We are proud to announce that we will be supporting and taking part in a National Protest on the matter on the 20th of June, 10am in Valletta. We urge our members and followers to attend in full force. Mark your attendance and share here.

Discards: The CFP Paradox!

Anthony Debono

Despite the problems facing European (and global fish stocks), 180,000 Tonnes of fish are thrown back into the Mediterranean and Black Sea every year. [1] The issue of discards is quite paradoxical, especially since one of the main factors which results in discards is in fact the issue of quotas, which have been put in place to protect fish stocks to begin with! The Common Fisheries Policy (CFP) has lead to this quite impressive catch 22, with fish being thrown overboard (mostly dead) simply because landing them would result in prosecution.

The issue of discards is quite complex and the current EU Commissioner for Fisheries, Maria Damanaki, has pledged to solve this problem. [2] Although there are a number of reasons for discarding fish at sea, they can be grouped into three main categories:

1. The fish are caught accidentally (non-target species/by-catch)

2. Quota Discards (Wherein the vessel has exceeded its quota for the particular species and if the fish are landed they would result in fines and possibly further prosecution)

3. Pre-Market Selection (this would be because of some market pressures i.e. the fish would not be attractive for sale and can be due to a number of reasons ranging from the fact that the fish spoil quickly or the particular sex or maturity of the fish are not marketable). [3]

These discards are a big question mark for fisheries scientists and law makers because although they are being physically removed from the wild stock they are not being calculated and considered when it comes to drawing up quotas and drafting legislation. Above I quoted 180,000 tonnes of discards in the Mediterranean alone, however it is impossible to give an exact figure since these discards happen before landing and fisheries statistics are based on landings.

"While the (European Fisheries) Commission sees reducing excessive fishing effort as the main way to reduce the level of unwanted catch, other measures should also be considered, such as:

• temporary closure of zones where a high proportion of juveniles are found;
• moving vessels to another fishing area once their unwanted catches exceed a certain level;
• adapting fishing gear so that threatened species or juveniles can escape from nets;
• reviewing existing management measures which may lead to discarding"[1]

An inspiring twist to the story of discards is the spark that started the European Commissioner's fire and inspired the change in tone to the problem of discards. This was celebrity chef, Hugh Fearnley Whittingstall's, campaign The Fish Fight, which ran a three-part TV series on the issue. Fearnley Whittingstall is a regular contributor to the Guardian where he delves into the murky waters of sustainable fisheries. [4]

It's inspiring to see a campaign like this contribute to decision making at a high level, such as the European Fisheries Commission. Putting a stop to discards altogether may be an impossible task, but developing a management plan which would not aggravate the situation such that quotas would not result in discards may be within our grasp.

Support Hugh's Fish Fight at http://www.fishfight.net/the-campaign/

---------

References

[1] Interesting factfile by the European Commission: http://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/documentation/publications/cfp_factsheets/discards_en.pdf

[2] http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/feb/03/fishing-food

[3] FAO Article on Discards: http://www.fao.org/docrep/w6602e/w6602e04.htm

[4] Hugh's take on Discards: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/mar/01/plan-end-discards-protects-fishermen

Further Reading:

http://www.scotland.gov.uk/News/Releases/2011/01/14163836

http://www.norden.org/en/news-and-events/news/eu-must-ban-fish-discard

Biodiversity concern on the rise in the European Parliament

Lately, the European Parliament passed a Motion for a Resolution which wasn’t given enough emphasis and perhaps rightly because it is rife with rhetoric. Nonetheless, this motion which centered around biodiversity, had some points worth mentioning and it would be good if we reproduce some of the things agreed by the MEPs on this motion namely:

1. The European Parliament (EP) slammed Japan for its prevention of protecting the blue fin tuna at a high-level meeting it hosted to discuss the Convention on Biological Diversity.
2. The EP was of the view that decisions to be taken at the next COP (the high-level meeting between heads of state to discuss the way forward with regards to climate change) must reflect the findings of the TEEB (a study which is giving monetary equivalence to ecosystem services, species, habitats etc.) and that the costs of biodiversity loss and the value of biodiversity need to be reflected in national accounts;
3. By 2020, subsidies harmful to biodiversity are eliminated, there is zero net deforestation, pressure on marine ecosystems through overfishing is halted, the introduction and establishment of invasive species are halted, at least 20% of land, fresh water and sea areas are protected, 15%of degraded ecosystems are restored;
4. Business engagement should include not only voluntary commitments but also obligations;
5. Member States should develop innovative systems for payment of ecosystem services and mobilizing private financing;
6. IN INTERNATIONAL TRADE AGREEMENTS SUSTAINABILITY OF THE PRODUCTS BEING TRADED IS A KEY ELEMENT AND THEREFORE THERE IS THE NEED TO INCLUDE PRODUCTION METHODS AND RESPECT FOR BIODIVERSITY IN ANY FUTURE WTO AGREEMENT.

ALL MALTESE MEPs VOTED IN FAVOR OF THIS MOTION FOR RESOLUTION.


The majority of MEPs voted in favor and thus was adopted by the Parliament.