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.

Learning from the Gulf of Mexico: The EP Discuss

And while ships are still battling the oils in the Gulf of Mexico, the European Parliament has been discussing the possibility of a temporary ban on new deep-water oil drilling in Europe until uniform oil-rig safety standards procedures were introduced.
But let’s put this on the back burner for a minute.

The Parliament voted in favor of, amongst others, the following:

• to develop rigorous EU-wide accident prevention policies for oil platforms
• to lower the damage threshold under the Environmental Liability Directive and to include damages caused to marine waters within its scope

*The Environmental Liability Directive ensures that the polluter pays for whatever damage to the environment his actions might have caused.

• to ensure that all seabed activities are subjected to a mandatory assessment, that the quality of EIAs is guaranteed and that hyper-hazardous activities such as seabed drilling are not permitted to proceed where an EIA indicates that risks cannot be satisfactorily mitigated
• consider compulsory EU-wide insurance schemes designed to compensate affected businesses in the event of a spill
• examine the decommissioning of existing drilling infrastructure, taking due account of existing international and national regulations in this area, and to clarify, if necessary by way of legislation, the responsibility of operators for ensuring safe removal and liability for any environmental damage resulting from the decommissioning of offshore infrastructure and any environmental damage arising from an offshore installation or drilling site after it has been decommissioned

The absolute majority of MEPs, including the Maltese, voted in favour of the above.

Turning to the moratorium discussed above, the majority of MEPs voted against the moratorium. Scottish MEPs especially welcomed the vote because the EU’s biggest oil reserves are found off the Scottish coast.

All Maltese MEPs voted in favour of the Moratorium with John Attard Montalto not voting.

Killing Pests while Safeguarding Public and Environmental Health

The European Parliament is in full swing again and one of the first issues discussed by the members of Parliament is biocides.

Biocides are chemicals used to kill living organisms. Strictly speaking field pesticides are also biocides but the EU tackles agricultural pesticides on their own and hence the chemicals being discussed as biocides include those which are commonly found in our homes and include the following:

• Disinfectants such as human hygiene products, private area and public health area disinfectants (such as chemicals used for swimming pools, toilets etc.), veterinary hygiene products, food disinfectants and drinking water disinfectants.
• Preservatives which are used to kill microbes to increase the product’s shelf-life, film preservatives, wood preservatives, fiber and leather preservatives, masonry preservatives, food and others.
• Pest control: those used for the control of rats, birds, mollusks (such as snails), fish, insects etc.
• Others such as antifouling products (applied to sea vessels etc. to prevent the growth and settling of organisms from growing) and embalming fluids.

The European Parliament voted on a draft legislation that would see the strengthening of health and environmental protection.

Some harmful substances which cause cancer area already banned from the EU. Now, persistent, bioaccumulative or toxic substances should also be restricted through this vote.

Products treated with biocides (such as furniture which is sprayed with chemicals to prevent the settling of mould) will now also be included under the new rules. Special safety checks and labeling for products that contain nanoparticles were also agreed on.

This vote also set the scene for the sharing of data between companies in exchange for fair compensation to avoid duplication of tests on animals.

Some organizations argued that the restrictions on such products are not as strict as those for pesticides and other chemicals in the EU and this might be the case. But slowly we are seeing these chemicals so prevalent in our homes being regulated to pose less of a health and environmental risk. We are being continuously exposed to such chemicals and such regulations are commended. One hopes that this is the first of a series of regulations to ensure human and environmental health is safeguarded.

All five Maltese MEPs voted in favor of these rules.

Illegal timber to be sawed off EU markets

"The world's largest market is about to shut its gates to companies profiting from illegal trafficking and forest destruction. With this law, the black economy for wood products in Europe will be closed for business, levelling the playing field so companies are better able to act sustainably," Sébastien Risso, Greenpeace EU's forest policy director.

On the 7th of July, the European Parliament voted to ban the sale of illegally harvested timber. This new legislation bans illegally-harvested timber or timber products from being placed on the EU market. Currently, at least 20% of timber and timber products reaching the EU market is estimated to come from illegal sources.

The agreement exempts printed materials such as books and newspapers for at least five years.

Member States will be responsible for applying sanctions to operators who break the rules. Fines can be imposed depending on the environmental damage caused, the value of timber and lost tax revenue. To ensure traceability, each operator along the supply chain will need to declare from whom they bought the timber and to whom they sold it.

This is an important step by the EU to tackle illegal deforestation which has devastating effects. On a global level, deforestation contributes 20% of greenhouse gas emissions. Where it occurs, soil degradation, loss of biodiversity and landslides frequently happen. It also hit forest-dependent people and the economies of developing countries.

Environmentalists regretted the weakness of the sanctions as national capitals rejected a minimum framework of penalties which would be applied across Europe. Instead, it will be left to member states’ discretion how strict the penalties should be.

The toughest opposition to the agreement came from Sweden and Portugal which have strong forest industries and which therefore would hit them hardest.

All Maltese MEPs voted in favor of this agreement.

MEP Watch - Food Labelling: Know What You're Buying

‘Food labelling must be easily recognisable, legible and understandable for the average consumer’(Amendment 67).

When we go shopping for food from our supermarkets, we may look at a particular product and ask ourselves: ‘Is this good for me?’ ‘Should I pick something healthier than this?’ ‘Maybe this is not too bad afterall?’

Well, the European Parliament tried to make this frequent moment in our life easier. Food labeling was discussed and some very important results came out of it.

It is important to note that this vote covered almost every aspect of labeling- from the position of the labeling to what should be written, in what language etc. etc.

I went over the amendments and it wasn’t an easy task at all-there were over 300 of them! I picked up what I think are the most relevant for us as consumers and those that were either interesting to give a second thought about or those which created a bit of a heated debate.

Firstly, it is useless to read the nutritional information on a food item without having any idea of the difference between proteins and carbohydrates, that there are different types of fats and the limit above which salt can become dangerous. Thus amendment 4 states that

“Education and information campaigns are an important mechanism for improving consumer understanding of food information.”

This amendment was adopted by the majority of the European Parliament.

Amendment 6 excludes a set of parties which are involved with the food sector from following the regulations set out. These are farmers which market directly their own products and providers of mass catering services. The reason for the former is that farmers would be overstretched if they had to go through all the process of labeling their own products- and since farmers do not use extra ingredients or other additives this is understandable. The mass catering services are not obliged to follow these regulations because there are no standardized procedures for them and ingredients change all the time. This amendment was adopted by the majority of the European Parliament.

Amendment 13 requires products which claim they have some particular physical benefits- for example cereal flakes claiming that they lead to weight loss- to have these claims accompanied by a diet plan explaining the conditions under which these results may be obtained. This amendment was adopted by the majority of the European Parliament.

There is no need to comment on amendment 16 which states that “It is possible to envisage consumers obtaining additional information via terminals placed in supermarkets. Those terminals would, by reading the barcode, furnish information about the product concerned. Likewise, it is possible to envisage consumers accessing additional information via a web page on the Internet.” This amendment was adopted by the majority of the European Parliament.

Article 37 of the text specifies that

“To appeal to the average consumer and to serve the informative purpose for which it is introduced, and given the current level of knowledge on the subject of nutrition, the information provided should be simple and easily understood. Research has indicated that consumers find the information in the principal field of view or ‘front of pack’ is useful when making purchasing decisions. Therefore, to ensure that consumers can readily see the essential nutrition information when purchasing foods such information should be in the principal field of view of the label.”

A very important amendment is amendment 251 which refers to GMOs. With the advent of GMO cultivation behind the door for Europeans, consumers have the right to know if the product they’re consuming is genetically modified. This amendment states that

“Operators in the catering sector and anyone providing food products shall inform consumers whenever the product intended for consumption is a GMO product and/or contains derivatives and substances that may be classified as GMOs.”

FROM THE FIVE MALTESE MEPS ONLY JOHN ATTARD MONTALTO VOTED IN FAVOUR OF THIS AMENDMENT. THIS AMENDMENT WAS DEFEATED OVERALL.

Another amendment which may be very interesting to ponder about and which is the first in its field is amendment 266. This amendment combines food production with its source and its potential social impacts by letting consumers know if their food has been produced under conditions such as child labour, forced labour, discrimination etc. by including a percentage value which would be set to 0 if a guarantee can be given on the absence of these practices. Related with this is amendment 271 which states that

“it shall be admissible to provide information on environmental, social and ethical considerations regarding foodstuffs.”

BOTH THESE AMENDMENTS WERE VOTED AGAINST BY THE MAJORITY OF PARLIAMENT.

Amendments 272, 288 and 314 were perhaps the most hotly debated. They provided for the possibility of including a coloured scheme for nutritional information to give consumers a better schematic representation of what ingredients they should be cautious about and make the information more understandable to consumers. In amendment 314 it was suggested that

“the text "Low", "Medium" or "High" in combination with the colours green, amber and red”.

SIMON BUSUTTIL AND DAVID CASA VOTED AGAINST THIS COLOR-CODED SCHEME WHILE JOHN ATTARD MONTALTO, LOUIS GRECH AND EDWARD SCICLUNA VOTED IN FAVOUR. THIS SCHEME WAS DEFEATED OVERALL AND NEITHER OF THE AMENDMENTS MADE IT THROUGH TO THE FINAL ADOPTED TEXT.

Through these texts the European Parliament even rejected these coloured schemes applied at national levels.

Some other amendments which one would do well to notice include:

• Amendment 10 states that “mandatory food labelling should be confined to basic information which is demonstrably of great interest to the majority of consumers” and this is done “to avoid unnecessary packaging waste” and “to enable food information law to adapt to changing consumers' needs for information”.

ADOPTED

• In line with amendment 4 discussed above, amendment 26 states that” The mandatory provision of nutrition information on the front and back of the packaging should be supported by actions by Member States such as a nutritional action plan as part of their public health policy, which will provide specific recommendations for nutrition education for the public and support informed food choice.”

ADOPTED

• Amendment 33 calls on a ban on artificial trans fatty acids- the consumption of which are directly related to overweight and obesity. Until such a ban enters into force, the labeling of this ingredient should be mandatory.

THIS AMENDMENT WAS VOTED AGAINST BY THE MAJORITY OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT.

• Amongst other amendments focusing on the country of origin of foods, amendment 65 states that “For meat and foods containing meat, the country of origin shall be defined as the country in which the animal was born, reared for most of its life, and slaughtered. If different, all three places shall be given when reference is made to the country of origin.”

THIS AMENDMENT WAS VOTED AGAINST BY THE MAJORITY OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT.

• If the product contains an ingredient which is an ‘imitation’, for example cheese made from vegetable oil, amendment 78 states that ‘the packaging must prominently bear the marking 'imitation' or 'produced with’.

ADOPTED

• Deceiving clauses on packaging should be reduced through amendment 79 which doesn’t allow packaging to highlight normal properties of food as specific characteristics. For example, fruit gums cannot bear the slogan ‘fat-free’ because fruit gums contain no fat by nature.

ADOPTED

• Article 16 of the text adopted explicitly states that ‘… mandatory food information shall appear in a language easily understood by the consumers of the Member States where a food is marketed.’ You cannot have information appearing only in Arabic if you live in Malta.
  

• The word ‘nano’ must be indicated for products containing nanomaterials according to amendment 130.

ADOPTED

• The term ‘vegetarian’ should not be applied to foods that are, or are made from or with the aid of products derived from animals that have died, have been slaughtered, or animals that die as a result of being eaten. The term ‘vegan’ should not be applied to foods that are, or are made from or with the aid of, animals or animal products (including products from living animals)- Amendment 175.

ADOPTED

Votes were also passed to ask producers of processed foods, such as biscuits and prepared meals, to indicate on the front packaging the content of energy, salt, sugar, fat and saturated fat together which should be accompanied by the guideline daily amounts and expressed with values per 100g or per 100ml.

This vote was preceded by huge pressures from the food and drink industry. The industry invested more than 1 billion euros to lobby to block the coloured scheme for products- a figure denied by the Confederation of the Food and Drink Industries of the EU.

Corporate Europe Observatory said:

“Food industry lobbyists have bombarded MEPs with information about the labelling scheme, in the biggest lobbying campaign seen in Brussels in recent years,” and that industrial lobbyists managed to "drown out the message from public health campaigners on a scale of 100 to 1."

MEP Watch - The Ban Of Cyanide Mining In The EU

Cyanide mining is a mining technique by which gold is extracted from low-grade ore. It is a very common process for gold extraction. Cyanide is a highly toxic chemical and cyanide spills can have devastating effects on water bodies because it can kill several wildlife. Many countries and US States have banned this practice. It was time for the EU to follow suit.

It is interesting to note that it requires one tonne of ore to produce two grams of gold, leaving enormous amounts of waste.

The EU, in a vote for a motion for a resolution on the 28^th of April, has called for a ban on cyanide mining. It recognized the irreversible health effects of cyanide mining and the cross-border effects that cyanide pollution might have especially on water bodies and especially on the Danube river which has been the centre of attention for its dire need of cleaning. It also recognizes that alternatives to cyanide mining do exist.

In light of the above considerations the EU called for the BANNING of cyanide mining before the end of 2011 so that it won’t pollute the water bodies. It also called for the proposal of an amendment to existing legislation so that waste from extractive industries is taken care of by the operating company which should take insurance to cover compensation for damage and all remedial costs incurred in restoring the site to its original ecological and chemical status in the event of an accident or malfunction.

This proposal was met with huge resistance by Romanians. They complained that their country was being singled-out as the ban calls for the banning of any forthcoming projects and Romania has a 22-billion-dollar gold mine in the pipeline. There was a desperate bid to salvage the business hopes by the Romanians as they tabled an amendment for an EU-wide assessment before the ban is considered. This amendment was turned down.

One of the main countries opposing Romania’s position was Hungary. Their staunch support of the ban stems from the Romanian Baia Mare disaster in 2000 which had a severe ecological impact on Hungarian territory.

Simon Busuttil, Louis Grech and Edward Scicluna voted in favor of the motion. David Casa and John Attard Montalto didn’t vote.

European Parliament Calling for Investment in Low Carbon Tech

The European Parliament has asked the Commission to invest more money in innovative technologies that would help cut greenhouse gasses by 20% by 2020.

This resolution was supported by the EPP, S&D, ALDE and ECR while the GUE/NGL and Greens/EFA voted against as they argued the goals are not ambitious enough. The right wing (EFD) voted against as they said that such investments should be made at national not at EU level.

All Maltese MEPs voted in favor of the resolution.

But what is the resolution all about?

The European Union must reduce its greenhouse gasses by 20% by 2020 (or 30% if other international partners take on a similar ambitious target). For this to be achieved new technologies must be used as a solution to the current scenario where fossil fuel is burnt with carbon dioxide, the most abundant greenhouse gas, being released unattended into the atmosphere- the main cause of climate change.

Research and development in this area is being given a lot of importance with millions of euros being invested throughout EU research institutes to either fine tune current low carbon technologies or invent new ones.

The six European Industrial Initiatives (EII) are, as the name implies, initiatives undertaken in six areas which can help reduce greenhouse gasses from finding their way into the atmosphere. These are solar energy, wind energy, bio-energy, carbon dioxide capture, transport and storage, the electricity grid and sustainable nuclear fission.

Over the next 10 years, the European Commission identified the need for investments in these areas of:

• 6 billion euros for wind energy;
• 16 billion euros for solar energy;
• 2 billion euros for electricity networks;
• 9 billion euros for bio-energy;
• 13 billion euros for carbon capture and storage;
• 7 billion euros for nuclear fission and
• 5 billion euros for fuel cells and hydrogen

There is also the SET Plan (Strategic Energy Technology Plan) which aims to accelerate the development and deployment of cost-effective low carbon technologies. This has the potential to turn the EU into an innovative economy, creating thousands of new jobs.

In this resolution, the European Parliament (EP) urges more investment for both the EII and the SET-Plan to continue being implemented at the fastest possible rate. It reiterates that those technologies which have the greatest potential to create jobs should be given priority.

The EP is calling, amongst others, for the urgent establishment of a funding timetable by the Commission and the Member States of the resources they will commit to ensure that funds start flowing as from 2010. It is also calling to use the 300 million euros set aside from a mechanism in the Emission Trading Scheme (ETS) to support carbon capture and storage and innovative renewable sources of energy and for the European Investment Bank to increase its capacity to offer loans to energy projects.

The EP “asks the Commission, in close cooperation with the EIB, to come forward without delay, and by 2011 at the latest, with a comprehensive proposal for an instrument to finance renewable energy and energy efficiency projects and smart grids development”.

I would like to draw the attention to one amendment that was proposed by Greens/ALE:

Motion for a resolution

Amendment

5. Underlines that, in the light of the economic crisis, investing in those new technologies that have the greatest potential for job creation should be a priority; underlines that it will lead to the creation of markets, generate new revenue streams and contribute to the development of the EU’s economy and competitiveness; stresses, finally, that it will, furthermore, strengthen the security of the EU’s energy supply and reduce its energy dependency on a limited number of energy resources, suppliers and transport routes;

5. Underlines that, in the light of the economic and the employment crisis, as well as the need for global GHG emissions to peak by 2015, the EU must only invest in those new safe technologies and implement those roadmaps which will have an immediate impact in terms of employment, social cohesion and climate protection; underlines that it will lead to the creation of markets, generate new revenue streams and contribute to the development of the EU’s economy and competitiveness; stresses, finally, that it will, furthermore, strengthen the security of the EU’s energy supply and reduce its energy dependency on a limited number of energy resources, suppliers and transport routes;

*The phrases in bold are those which were amended

This amendment was voted against by the majority of Parliament. Can we make our greenhouse gasses peak by 2015? Is it too ambitious? What will be the repercussions if we don’t? What is needed for this to happen?

With regards to the resolution passed by the EP, I think Malta is in dire need of low carbon technologies. We are finally starting to invest in wind farms, PVs, energy efficiency, smart grids and more. Although limited in size, it is still a pity that we are practically completely depended on fossil fuels for our energy generation. If low carbon technologies come our way, we can do much more. We can extract energy from our seas for example. We can start using hydrogen fuel to power our cars. We mustn’t be afraid to change our way. The possibilities are only limited by human creativity and we’d better put our money where our mouth is because catastrophic climate change is not as distant as we thought it might be.

_________________________________________________________________

During this same week questions relating to the UN report on the War on Gaza or Operation Cast Lead as it was code named had been sent to our elected representatives. Each one failed to reply to our questions even after reminders where sent.

Furthermore, a question relating to the Financial Transaction Tax (a tax claimed to have the potential of funding action against climate change and poverty) was replied only by Dr Edward Scicluna in his capacity as member of the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs. The following are extracts from his statements in the Committee:

Since then, the Commission has been investigating the subject, and we are highlighting here the large range of questions needing to be answered. There have been calls, including in the G20 last September, to make the financial sector pay for setting up stability funds and recompense for the damage that they have caused to the real economy. President Barroso has suggested using a global financial levy to fund environmental projects. The original Tobin Tax idea of using a financial transaction tax for development aid has also strongly resurfaced. .........

....... One idea concerning the tax is that nobody would notice because it is so small in each instance. On the other hand, others suggest it should be used to deter excessive transactions. It seems to my committee that if the end amount collected is large – and the sums suggest so – then somebody somewhere will actually be paying. ...............

......... . If the tax is collected in London for a derivative transaction that is uncosted, to somewhere else in the world, who says where to spend it? This question may be easier to answer if it goes to a financial stability cause in which the payers are obviously participating than if it is to go outside the financial sphere, such as to environmental projects or development aid. ...........

Further reading is suggested on this matter as the form and extent of such a tax will imply from another EU wide form of taxation and the possibility of a tax linked directly to an international Humanitarian cause. Civil Society has already mobilised in support of such a tax form through the Robin Hood Tax Campaign. Their video can be see here:

Bluefin Tuna- a chance for surivival?

What is CITES?

CITES stands for the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora. It is an international agreement between governments to ensure that international trade of wild animals and plants does not threaten their survival in the wild. This threat is due to various sources including food, medicine, pet collection, timber, musical instruments, furniture, clothes and others.

Today, CITES protects more than 30,000 species according to varying degrees of protection.

CITES is legally binding on parties but does not take the place of national laws. It now has 175 parties including Malta.

CITES Appendices

International trade of threatened species is subjected to certain controls. Thus import and exports and all other forms of trade are regulated for these species.

A species may fall within one of three appendices formulated by CITES.

Appendix I includes species which are threatened with extinction and trade is permitted only in exceptional circumstances.

Appendix II includes species which are not necessarily threatened with extinction but trade must be controlled so that their survival is not threatened.

Appendix III contains species which are protected in, at least, one country and which has asked CITES parties for assistance in controlling the trade of this species.

The Bluefin Tuna saga

The bluefin tuna is a fish which is also found in the Mediterranean sea. For many years fishermen have caught this fish, brought it to tuna farms to fatten the fish, and then sell the fattened tuna. Malta is one of the main sites for tuna farming and thousands of tonnes of tuna is exported each year locally to Japan for their sushi market. A single bluefin tuna sells at approximately 125,000 euros sometimes and as the species becomes rarer, the price will get higher and higher. Last year Malta exported 86.3 million euros worth of bluefin tuna- nearly 2% of the GDP.

The bluefin tuna stocks are in dire need of help and are on the verge of collapse. This is because the species is massively overfished and the rate of catch of this fish is higher than the rate at which this species can reproduce. This overfishing is due to massive fleets of ships, using very high-tech equipment catching astronomical amounts of tuna. Add to this the rampant illegal fishing for this resource and you’ll find out that the rate of decline of this fish is a really serious issue. This is not only a concern for environmentalists but also for the fishermen themselves as they have themselves admitted that the effort to catch the same amount of fish as a few years ago has increased. This means that these fishermen’s sons will no longer be able to catch this fish and the sushi we, and especially the people from the Land of the Rising Sun, so much enjoy will be compromised.

The EU’s position

Last September, the European Commission has suggested that tuna should be included in Appendix I of the CITES convention when the parties meet next March. This would practically mean the end of its export and thus a huge blow for countries which are economically dependent on this fish’s market. But this recommended ban was shot down by Mediterranean countries with a stake in the trade- Greece, Cyprus, Malta, Spain, France and Italy.

The ex- environment Commissioner Stavros Dimas was at loggerheads with the fisheries Commissioner Joe Borg because the latter didn’t support the ban and favored a more restricted catch with reduced quotas for each party.

Since then both Italy and France dropped their objection to the ban and the rest of the countries lost the blocking minority which was holding the EU from adopting the position of a tuna trade ban next March when the CITES parties meet.

The vote at the European Parliament

On the 10^th of February, the European Parliament discussed whether the EU should support the inclusion of tuna in Appendix I.

The Maltese MEPs argued against the proposition. Simon Busuttil argued that neither the fishermen nor the tuna stocks should suffer. He argues in favour of having stricter controls without a total ban on tuna trade. He also proposed to insert tuna under CITES’ Appendix II. Edward Scicluna also argues in favour of putting the bluefin tuna under Appenix II. He asked for common sense and proportionality since the ban on tuna trade would cost Malta close to 2% of its GDP.

The original resolution was amended. Amendment 7/rev changed the resolution and added that the following four criteria must be applied if tuna is going to be banned under Appendix I. These four criteria are:

(i) the deferral for 18 months of the tuna’s entry into Appendix I. Thus tuna would still be able to be caught and traded for the next 18 months;

(ii) tuna can still be caught for the local trade;

(iii) the EU must provide financial support for seafarers and vessel owners affected by this ban;

(iv) tighter controls and tougher penalties to combat illegal and unreported fishing.

This amendment was adopted with Simon Busuttil, Edward Scicluna and John Attard Montalto voting in favour while David Casa and Louis Grech not voting.

The resolution, including the above text was adopted and so now the EU will support the inclusion of the bluefin tuna in Appendix I.

This doesn’t mean that tuna will definitely be included in this Appendix as this must be decided next March when the CITES parties meet. Japan will surely object strongly to the proposal. But this means that the EU, a key player in these talks, will support the ban.

Other species

In this resolution the EU also supports the following, amongst others:

- the inclusion of a number of shark species in CITES Appendix II;

- the transfer of the polar bear from Appendix II to Appendix I;

- the inclusion of an annotation for African elephants preventing any future proposals to trade ivory or to downlist the species from Appendix I to Appendix II;

Species the EU is seeking to protect (comments in brackets include those species for which the EU is seeking more protection and which are related to the species pictured but which a picture of the species per se is not included):

MEPs express themselves on Climate Change and the upcoming Copenhagen

On the 20th of October the plenary session of the European parliament had a debate on the Position of the Council on the Copenhagen Agreement which are to take over and replace the current Kyoto agreement.

This debate gave no votes on the content of the statement currently drafted but gave space for the MEPs to express themselve on the content and what is at stake at the Copenhagen debate. Therefore, we have prepared three questions to the Maltese MEPs to give their vews on Climate Change and Copenhagen.

The following are the questions asked and the answers recieved:

The EU is seen as having taken a leadership position in the drafting of the Kyoto protocol, and also later in the way it lived up to its commitments differently from the rest of the western world. Given the greater likeliness of cooperation and a greater amount of countries involved this time around at Copenhagen what position should the EU take in the negotiations?

I would like to see the EU taking a strong position for Copenhagen, pressing for an ambitious and comprehensive agreement that will prevent global temperatures from rising more than 2°C above pre-industrial levels. Most importantly, we should insist on binding emission reductions for all industrialised countries and appropriate action by developing countries to limit emissions. We also need to establish a global framework for adaptation to climate change, whose main component should be an expanded international carbon market that would generate a large part of the funds necessary for mitigation measures and promote emission cuts. I also support the socialist view that developing countries have contributed least to climate change but are facing its most severe consequences, therefore we must also ensure that climate change policies do not undermine, but work towards the attainment of the Millennium Development Goals. Generally, as an outcome of Copenhagen, I would like to see a single, legally binding agreement that builds on the Kyoto Protocol and moves it forward.

- Louis Grech

As it did before, the EU should show its strong commitment to fight the challenges of climate change. It should demonstrate the leadership in taking up ambitious mitigation action within its borders and outside and through its determination to support developing countries both financially and technologically in moving to a low carbon growth scenario. The EU must continue with its current commitment of reducing carbon emissions by 20% by 2020 with the aim to reach an even more ambitious target to reduce emissions by 30%. However, the success of our efforts lies in mutual confidence, trust and belief that sustainable growth on a global scale is the way to respond to the challenge.

- John Attard Montalto

Simon Busuttil - No Reply

David Casa – No Reply

Edward Scicluna – No Reply

________________________________

A lot has been said on the best way to finance our way out of the financial crisis and climate change as a dual objective. Where would EU funding be most effective in the aim of reducing EU carbon emissions and which type of technology seems most promising in achieving these objectives?

· At the moment, in the S&D Group and in the Budget Committee it has been agreed that as regards Budget 2010, funding should not be allocated for economic recovery at the expense of issues such as climate change. Thus, I firmly believe that one issues should not be at the expense of the other.

· The biggest source of carbon emissions is fossil fuel combustion, so our first priority should be the development of technologies that reduce our dependence on it or replace it altogether. Therefore providing funding for research and development of renewable energy sources has clear benefits. The transportation and construction sectors are major sources of carbon emissions and investments to make them less polluting would contribute to mitigate the financial crisis as well. Funding eco-friendly infrastructure and making buildings more energy-efficient will create many "green jobs" in the short term and save costs and emissions in the long term. Generally, I am strongly in favour of providing EU funds for cost-effective solutions that will pay for themselves in the long term, while at the same time reducing emissions. I also believe it is important to subsidize developing countries with new technologies that reduce emissions, which they would not be able to afford otherwise.

· Generally speaking, the EU budget - in its present format -cannot deal efficiently and effectively with issues related to climate change.

In October 2008 I had made a formal proposal that was approved by Parliament. The proposal dictated that the Union will create a specific fund to finance measures on climate change which will cost millions of euro annually, but within the context of an integrated strategy. I proposed that the fund be financed through the Emissions Trading Scheme, under which companies throughout the EU pay charges according to the greenhouse gasses their plants and factories emit.

Thus, in this respect, I am arguing that the creation of a specific "Climate Change Fund" or a dedicated budget line would significantly improve the EU's capability to effectively address climate change issues from a budgetary and financial perspective

- Louis Grech

Considering that the effective use and introduction of renewable energies in many spheres of life presents a solution to reducing carbon emissions it would be helpful to accelerate the evolution of mechanisms which function on renewable energy sources (for example, support mechanisms for cooling and heating), as well as introducing renewable energy requirements on the local level when it comes to planning and building in industrial and residential areas. The most promising answer to achieving these objectives is a mix of energy producing technologies using wind, sun, currents, thermal sources, etc. If I had to single out a particular source I believe the sun is the answer.

- John Attard Montalto

Simon Busuttil - No Reply

David Casa – No Reply

Edward Scicluna – No Reply

________________________________

Malta stands to lose considerably in terms of tourism, agriculture and biodiversity from the impacts of climate change. What is your view on these arising issues in the Maltese context?

Not necessarily, since the months in which tourism is lowest will see an increase in the number of tourists as the weather will be warmer. The months which today are referred to as high season will be negatively impacted. The end result will probably be a balancing out in the numbers lost in very hot months with the numbers gained in warmer months.

This will also apply to energy usage since an increase in cooling systems will be compensated with a decrease in warming systems.

As the sun is the answer as a source for future energy Malta will be in a better position to harness this type of energy.

The rise in sea water levels will affect the surface area of the islands, however it will not be difficult to use reclamation procedures as the depth of water under which the areas will be submerged will be moderate.

- John Attard Montalto

Simon Busuttil - No Reply

David Casa – No Reply

Louis Grech – No Reply

Edward Scicluna – No Reply

More information:

Video Streaming	Attendence Report	Debate
Watch the debate which took place on the Council’s position for the EU with regards to the Copenhagen Summit.	List of MEPs present for this Plenary Session	Find the transcripts of the debate which took place in this plenary session. Translations of all MEP will take place over time.