Il-Lobbying u l-eżerċizzju tal-poter

Meta niddiskutu l-politika dwar ir-regolamentazzjoni tal-lobbying bosta drabi jqum l-argument dwar dawk il-politiċi li hekk kif jispiċċaw mill-politika attiva jingħataw responsabbiltajiet f’azjendi kbar. Din nirreferu għaliha bħala politika tar-“revolving door”, imsemmija għall-dawk il-bibien tal-lukandi li jduru u li hekk kif tidħol fiċ-ċirku tagħhom, malajr tispiċċa ġewwa.

L-eżempju klassiku li jissemma hu l-ingaġġ ta’ Josè Manuel Barroso li sa ħames snin ilu kien President tal-Kummissjoni Ewropea mill-bank multinazzjonali Goldman Sachs. Il-kumitat tal-etika tal-Unjoni Ewropea kien iddeskriva l-imġieba ta’ Barroso bħala waħda li kienet etikament ħażina avolja kien konkluż li ma kien hemm l-ebda ksur tal-Kodiċi tal-Etika.

Imġiba bħal din hi meqjusa bħala parti integrali mill-proċess tal-lobbying li jeħtieġ li jkun regolat b’mod adegwat.

F’Malta dawn l-affarijiet nagħmluhom “aħjar” minn hekk għax l-anqas regoli dwar imġieba ta’ din ix-xorta ma għandna! Fost oħrajn, dan huwa riżultat tal-fatt li ma kienx hemm qbil bejn Gvern u Opposizzjoni fil-Parlament dwar ir-regolamentazzjoni tal-lobbying meta kienet qed tkun diskussa il-liġi dwar l-Istandards fil-Ħajja Pubblika. Allura ipposponew id-diskussjoni billi tefgħuha f’ħoġor il-Kummissarju dwar l-Istandards fil-Ħajja Pubblika George Hyzler, bl-inkarigu li jkun hu li jabbozza r-regoli proposti dwar il-lobbying f’Malta.

F’Malta dan fil-fatt seħħ ukoll fil-passat riċenti mhux biss meta John Dalli kien ingaġġat mal-Grupp tal-Marsovin imma ukoll meta l-Grupp Corinthia, fi żminijiet differenti, ingaġġa kemm lis-Sur Dalli kif ukoll lill-Karmenu Vella, li għadu kif temm perjodu ta’ ħames snin bħala Kummissarju tal-Unjoni Ewropea. Ma nkisrux regoli minħabba li l-imġiba etika f’dan il-pajjiż hi ġeneralment injorata. Ir-reazzjoni lokali għal dan l-ingaġġ ta’ politiċi ġeneralment kienet: għala le?

Hu loġiku li nikkonkludu li jekk f’Malta niġu naqgħu u nqumu milli nirregolaw kif fid-dinja tan-negozju u l-industrija jingaġġaw malajr politiċi li jkunu għadhom kif spiċċaw mill-ħatra, aħseb u ara kemm ser nagħtu kaz meta nies tan-negozju jiġu ngaġġati huma stess f’posizzjonijiet viċin il-politiċi biex b’hekk jinfluwenzaw u jirregolaw l-aġenda pubblika.

Wara skiet twil, f’wieħed mill-messaġġ qosra, qishom it-talba ta’ filgħodu, li qed jippubblika fuq facebook, Varist Bartolo, qalilna kemm hu perikoluż li nies tan-negożju jkunu viċin iżżejjed tal-poter. Probabbilment li qed jitkellem mill-esperjenza, wara li hu u sħabu fil-Kabinett kienu qed jiffaċċjaw lill-Keith Schembri għal kważi seba’ snin sħaħ fl-Uffiċċju tal-Prim Ministru. U dan mhux l-uniku kaz.

Meta l-Kummissarju dwar l-Istandards fil-Ħajja Pubblika ikollu l-ħin biex ifassal regoli dwar il-lobbying, dan kollu, bla dubju, jkun wieħed mill-punti fundamentali li jkunu meħtieġa illi jkunu indirizzati. In konformità ma dak li jiġri band’oħra, probabbilment li jikkonsidra regolament li ma jippermettix li l-qabża mis-settur politiku għal dak kummerċjali jseħħ immedjatament. Dan ikun ifisser li ħatriet ta’ din ix-xorta jkollhom jistennew bejn sena u nofs u sentejn minn meta tkun ġiet fi tmiemha l-ħidma fis-settur li fiha l-persuna tkun ħadmet l-aħħar. Dan isir bl-intenzjoni li jkun imnaqqas l-impatt negattiv tal-lobbying li inevitabilment jirriżulta u li jkun intrinsikament assoċjat ma dawn it-tip ta’ ħatriet.

Qegħdin tard ukoll biex ikun regolat il-lobbying b’mod ġenerali. Ir-rimedju bażiku kontra l-impatti negattivi tal-lobbying hi t-trasparenza.

Il-lobbying, kemm-il darba jsir sewwa u b’mod etiku m’għandux iwassal għal governanza ħażina. Għax huwa perfettament leġittimu li ċittadin, gruppi ta’ ċittadini, kumpaniji u anke għaqdiet mhux governattivi jfittxu li jinfluwenzaw it-teħid tad-deċiżjonijiet. Dan isir il-ħin kollu u jinvolvi l-komunikazzjoni ta’ informazzjoni u opinjonijiet jew veduti lill-leġislaturi u lil dawk li jamministraw minn kull min għandu kwalunkwè xorta ta’ interess.

Dan hu perfettament leġittimu għax iżomm lil min jieħu d-deċiżjonijiet infurmat bl-impatti ta’ dak li jkun qiegħed ikun ikkunsidrat. Imma huwa importanti li dan il-lobbying ma jkunx trasformat fi proċess li bħala riżultat tiegħu il-politiku jagħmel il-wisa’ u d-deċiżjonijiet fil-fatt jeħodhom ħaddieħor mid-dinja tal-business.

Il-lobbying jirrikjedi ammont konsiderevoli ta’ transpareza: hu essenzjali li jkun sganċjat mis-segretezza jew kunfidenzjalità artifiċjali. Fejn il-lobbying hu regolat dan isir billi l-laqgħat jew attivitajiet oħra li jservu għall-lobbying jingħataw pubbliċità biex b’hekk ikun possibli li jsir skrutinju mill-opinjoni pubblika. Il-minuti ta’ dan it-tip ta’ laqgħat ikunu pubbliċi kif għandu jkun ukoll kull dokument u studju assoċjat. Għandna d-dritt li nkunu nafu min u kif qed ifittex li jinfluwenza l-proċess tad-deċiżjonijiet. Dan jassigura li l-lobbying ma jkunx użat bħala għodda sigrieta biex iħarbat il-proċess demokratiku li bih jittieħdu d-deċiżjonijiet politiċi.

Din hi waħda mill-problemi ewlenin li tat kontribut biex tixxettel il-kriżi politika preżenti f’Malta: in-nuqqas ta’ apprezzament tal-ħtieġa ta’ mġiba etika korretta f’kull ħin fil-ħajja pubblika. Problema li jeħtieġilna li niffaċċjawha immedjatament.

 

Ippubblikat fuq Illum : Il-Ħadd ta’ Diċembru 2019

Lobbying and the levers of power

When discussing the politics of lobbying regulation, what is known as the “revolving door” policy is frequently discussed. This is normally understood to mean the accelerated passage of a politician, generally from a senior political role, to a leading role in the corporate world.

The classic example of this was the recruitment by multinational investment bank Goldman Sachs of Josè Manuel Barroso, former President of the European Commission. An EU ethics panel had described Mr Barroso’s behaviour as morally reprehensible, even though it concluded that he was not in breach of the EU Integrity code.

Such behaviour is considered to be an integral part of the lobbying process which requires adequate regulation.

In Malta we do it even better than that, because no rules governing such behaviour exist! This is the result of no agreement on lobbying regulation being reached when the Standards in Public Life legislation was discussed by Parliament. As a result, they postponed the discussion and conveniently added the requirement of formulating lobbying rules to the duties of the Commissioner for Standards in Public Life, George Hyzler.

In Malta it has already happened in the recent past, not just in John Dalli’s recruitment by the Marsovin Group but also when the Corinthia Group recruited, at different times, both John Dalli and outgoing EU Commissioner Karmenu Vella. No rules were infringed, bypassed or ignored here as, to put it mildly, regulating ethical behaviour has never been Malta’s strong point. Rather, the local reaction was: why not?

It stands to reason that some would think that if Malta does not regulate the use of “revolving doors” to catapult politicians into the corporate world, why on earth should we regulate it for businessmen intending to do away with the lobbying middlemen and take the levers of power directly into their very hands?

After a long silence, it was very “thoughtful” of Minister of Education Evarist Bartolo to warn us of the perils we face in one of his recent early morning thoughts for the day posted on facebook. Together with his Cabinet colleagues he has had to face Keith Schembri for almost seven years at the Office of the Prime Minister, to name just one such appointment.

When the Commissioner for Standards in Public Life finds time to draft rules regulating lobbying, the issue of “revolving doors” should undoubtedly be high on his list of must dos. In line with lobbying regulations in other jurisdictions he will, hopefully, be proposing a cooling off period as a brake on such appointments. This would mean high-level appointments from the corporate world to the political world (and vice-versa) would need to wait until 18 to 24 months have elapsed between ceasing activity in one sector and entering the other. This is normally intended to dampen the negative lobbying impacts which such appointments lead to. It is inevitable and is intrinsically linked with these types of appointments.

It is also about time for the regulation of lobbying in general. Applying transparency to lobbying is the basic antidote needed.

Lobbying, if done properly and above board, should not lead to bad governance. It is perfectly legitimate for any citizen, group of citizens, corporations or even NGOs to seek to influence decision-taking. It is done continuously and involves the communication of views and information to legislators and administrators by those who have an interest in informing them of the impacts of the decisions under consideration.

It is perfectly legitimate that individuals, acting on their own behalf or else acting on behalf of third parties, should seek to ensure that decision-takers are well informed before taking the required decisions. However, lobbying should not be the process through which the decision-takers make way for the representatives of corporations to take their place.

Lobbying requires a considerable dose of transparency: it needs to be unchained from the shackles of secrecy. In other jurisdictions this is done through actively disclosing information on lobbying activities, thereby placing them under the spotlight of public opinion. The timely publication of minutes, as well as documents and studies relative to meetings held by holders of political office, is essential. The public has a right to know who is seeking to influence the decision-taking process. This helps ensure that lobbying is not used as a tool to secretly derail or deflect the democratic process leading to political decisions.

This is one of the major issues resulting from the political crisis currently engulfing the Maltese islands: essentially an absence of ethics in the public sphere which should be addressed forthwith.

published in The Malta Independent on Sunday : 15 December 2019

Karmenu Vella and the plastic tax

Karmenu Vella, EU Commissioner for the Environment, is enthusiastic about the possibility of a plastic tax being introduced throughout the EU. In his view, this tax – if properly designed – could be one of a number of tools for delivering environmental objectives as well as providing budgetary income. Planet Earth is drowning in plastic.

Vella made these comments in an interview published on Euractive last week on the subject of the EU’s new plastics strategy.

We have been there before and maybe it is time to consider the matter once more in Malta. Some 10 years ago in Malta we had an environmental tax which was known as an “eco-contribution”. It was a valid proposal, badly designed and arrogantly implemented. The lessons learnt from that exercise could, if properly analysed, lead to the development of effective policy tools addressing the generation of waste in the Maltese islands. Policies should be well thought out and not developed as a result of panic – as is clearly the case with the current government incineration proposal.

Ten years ago, the eco-contribution tried to address the generation of plastic waste including “single-use plastic”. This is one of the primary targets of the EU plastics strategy published on the 16 January.

Its title is very clear : A European Strategy for Plastics in a Circular Economy. Plastic is ubiquitous: it is present in all aspects of our economy and our daily lives. The plastics we use must be such that they can be re-used rather than thrown away. It is an important resource which can be put to good use rather than thrown away or incinerated.

It is for this purpose that the newly-published plastics strategy lays the foundations for a new plastics economy where “the design and production of plastics and plastic products fully respect reuse, repair and recycling needs and more sustainable materials are developed and promoted”.

A plastics economy would definitely not send “waste plastic” to the incinerator to be converted into energy. Even Malta’s latest version of the Waste Management Strategy, approved in 2014, emphasises that our approach to waste must be one based on the sustainable use of resources and, in line with the EU waste hierarchy, gives priority to recycling over incineration.

In fairness, it has to be said that our government’s advisors on incineration have already sounded the alarm. Apparently this has not, as yet, been understood – either by the government or by the Opposition. It would be pertinent to point out that the Special Assignment Report by Jaspers dated 23 February 2017 on a Waste to Energy (WtE) project in Malta specifically emphasises that “it would be difficult to justify a WtE facility that is not based on low waste growth and high recycling”.

Rather than talking about incineration, it is about time we discussed in detail the implementation of our Waste Management Strategy in order to identify why it has not to date succeeded in increasing Malta’s recycling rates. What initiatives need to be taken in order that the waste generated in Malta is minimised?

Malta’s waste management strategy, now complemented by the EU’s Plastic Strategy, is definitely a much better roadmap than the documentation encouraging incineration. And what about our commitments to encourage a “circular economy” : gone with the wind?

Karmenu Vella’s plastics tax is food for thought.

It is about time that Wasteserve is managed properly. As a first step, it should stick to its brief and seek to implement carefully the Waste Management Strategy, which establishes the year 2050 as the year when we should achieve a “Zero Waste Target”. This target will not be achieved through the use of incineration but through a policy encouraging waste minimisation as well as recycling.

This is not just a task for the Minister responsible for the Environment. The Minister responsible for the Development of the Economy also has a very important role to play in achieving a successful implementation of the Waste Management Strategy.

Unfortunately he is apparently completely absent.

Zero waste municipalities in Europe are continuously indicating that an 80 to 90 per cent recycling rate is achievable. The fact that Malta’s recycling rate is, at best, estimated at around 12 per cent, is a clear indication that there is room for substantial improvement – with or without Karmenu Vella’s plastics tax.

Published in The Malta Independent on Sunday 28 January 2018

 

For sale : access to the decision-taking process

 

 

The Lowenbrau saga has raised another issue as to the extent that revolving door recruitment should be regulated. By revolving door recruitment I am referring to the movement from government service to private sector lobbying and vice-versa of holders of political office as well as of senior civil servants. As a result of such recruitment, an investment is being made in the access to the decision-taking process which is purchased or offered for sale.

Last Sunday, The Malta Independent on Sunday understandably raised the issue with reference to former Minister John Dalli in the article Revolving doors: John Dalli denies conflict of interest in Lowenbrau deal  (TMIS 22 January). However, the issue is much wider. It is a matter which is of concern in respect of the manner of operation of lobbying which in this country is largely unregulated. It has already happened not just in Mr Dalli’s recruitment with the Marsovin Group but also when the Corinthia Group recruited both Mr Dalli as well as current EU Commissioner Karmenu Vella.

It concerns both holders of political office as well as senior civil servants, including senior officers of authorities exercising executive authority.

There is much to learn from foreign jurisdictions as to the manner in which such recruitment should be regulated. A recent example which made the international headlines was the recruitment by Goldman Sachs of Josè Manuel Barroso, former President of the European Commission.  An ethics panel had described Mr Barroso’s behaviour as morally reprehensible even though it concluded that he was not in breach of the EU Integrity code.

Corporate Europe Observatory had then commented that the Barroso recruitment had “catapulted the EU’s revolving door problem onto the political agenda, causing widespread jaw-dropping and reactions of disbelief, making it a symbol of excessive corporate influence at the highest levels of the EU.”  Corporate Europe Observatory had also referred to the recruitment of other former European Commissioners by various corporations and emphasised that it is hard to avoid the conclusion that as a result of this behaviour European politicians are seen to be acting for private interests over the public interest.

This is the real significance of revolving door recruitment:  it needs to be ascertained that the potential abuse by holders of political office of milking public office for private gain is regulated. It is not just another layer of regulation or unnecessary bureaucracy.

The issue is however more complex than the recruitment of holders of political office at the end of their political appointment. It is also of relevance even when such holders of political office are appointed to such office from the private sector as can be ascertained through the current hearings by the US Senate of the Trump administration nominees. It is also applicable to senior civil servants from the wider public sector.

Parliament is currently debating a Standards in Public Life Bill, which at this point in time is pending examination at Committee stage. Unfortunately, revolving door recruitment as well as lobbying have not been considered by the legislator!   Revolving door recruitment is an exercise in selling and purchasing access to the decision-taking process. It is high time that it is placed under a continuous spotlight.

published in The Malta Independent: Wednesday 25 January 2017

Revolving doors: John Dalli and beyond

 

 

The Lowenbrau saga is developing further, much beyond its original obvious intent. The new twist is whether, and to what extent, the use of “revolving doors” by politicians as soon as their political office draws to an end is permissible.

The use of “revolving doors” is a reference to the practice of some politicians to join the Board of Directors or team of advisors of business/industry in an area which they would have been responsible for regulating when in office.

The practice in the EU and some other countries is to postpone the possible entry of former Commissioners (holders of political office) in the areas they previously regulated by three years. This signifies that former Commissioners (or Ministers) are forbidden (unless they obtain prior clearance) from joining Boards of Directors and/or organisations  of lobbyists for a number of years.  A case in point was the recent Barroso appointment to the Goldman Sachs Board which whilst being considered as being “morally reprehensible” was not deemed to be a breach of the EU integrity code.  

As far as I am aware, the Standards in Public Life Bill currently pending before Malta’s Parliament does not address the issue. The issues to be addressed are various. Primarily, however, it is urgent to establish a cooling-off length of time during which time persons active in public life should not take up posts in the private sector in order to ensure the observance of an ethical benchmark.

John Dalli’s taking up the post of Chairman of Marsovin is only one example. There are various others amongst which the posts which John Dalli himself as well as Karmenu Vella (present Commissioner and former Minister for Tourism) had taken up with the Corinthia Group in the past.

In fairness the applicability of such an ethical standard should also be considered for top civil servants, who should approach the use of revolving doors with extreme caution.  

Through the revolving door: politicians for sale at a discount

 

US Investment Bank Goldman Sachs announced last week that it had “hired” former EU Commission Chairman Josè Manuel Barroso as an advisor and non-executive Chairman of the Goldman Sachs International arm.

The New York Times quoting co-CEOs of Goldman Sachs International Michael Sherwood and Richard J. Gnoddle explained the relevance of the appointment as being “Josè Manuel’s immense insights and experience including a deep understanding of Europe”. Earlier this week, the EU Observer  further commented that Goldman Sachs hired Barroso “as it struggles with the fallout from Britain’s vote to leave the EU”.

Based in London but offering services across Europe, Goldman Sachs may be faced with limited or no access to the EU’s single market as a result of Brexit. Hence the need to hire Barroso as an advisor and lobbyist as the United Kingdom and the European Union prepare for the negotiations leading to the UK’s exit from the European Union which can be triggered any time in the forthcoming weeks through a declaration in terms of article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty.

Barroso’s engagement with Goldman Sachs is one which will be much debated as, like nine other members of the Commission which he led between 2009 and 2014, he has been catapulted into the corporate boardroom through the revolving door. His value to Goldman Sachs is his knowledge of the privileged information to which he had access during his 10-year tenure as President of the EU Commission and, the influence which he may still have on a number of key EU officials.  This gives great value to his advisory/lobbying role with Goldman Sachs.

European Union regulations on the possible activities of its former Commission members draw a cut-off line after an 18-month cooling-off period at the end of their tenure when, as stated by an EU Commission spokesperson, “there is a reasonable assumption that the access to privileged information or possible influence are no longer an issue”.   This is contested by the different political groupings in the EU Parliament who maintain that the cooling-off period for EU Commissioners taking up sensitive jobs after ceasing their duties as Commissioners should be extended from 18 months to five years as the present length of time is insufficient to ensure that the EU is really the servant of ordinary people and not of multinational corporations or international financial institutions.

This debate at a European Union level contrasts to the provisions of the Standards in Public Life Bill currently being debated by the Maltese Parliament which Bill, so far, does not make any provision on the regulation of lobbying in Malta in any form or format.

It is not unheard of in Malta for politicians to move through the revolving door from the Cabinet to the private sector boardroom or its anteroom, and back again. Three such cases of former Cabinet Ministers in Malta in the recent past come to mind : John Dalli and his involvement with the Corinthia Group and later the Marsovin Group, Karmenu Vella who similarly was heavily involved first with the Corinthia Group and subsequently with the Orange Travel Group as well as with Betfair and finally Tonio Fenech’s recent involvement in the financial industry.

Being unregulated, lobbying through the revolving door is not illegal but it can still be unethical and unacceptable in a modern democratic society as it can result in undue influence of corporations over the regulatory authorities.

Piloting the debate on the Standards in Public Life Bill on Monday 11 July, Deputy Prime Minister Louis Grech recognised the deficiencies of the Bill and declared that a register of lobbyists in Malta was a necessity. While this is a welcome statement and a significant first step forward, it is certainly not enough, as a proper regulation of lobbying in Malta is long overdue. This involves much more than registration of lobbyists or even the regulation of revolving door recruitment in both the private and the public sector.

If done properly, lobbying is perfectly legitimate. It is perfectly reasonable for any citizen, group of citizens, corporations or even NGOs to seek to influence decision-taking. In fact it is done continuously and involves the communication of views and information to legislators and administrators by those who have an interest in informing them of the impacts of the decisions under consideration. It is perfectly legitimate that individuals, acting on their own behalf or else acting on behalf of third parties, should seek to ensure that decision-takers are well informed before taking the required decisions.

However, for lobbying to be acceptable in a democratic society, it must be done transparently. In particular, through regulation it must be ensured  that lobbying should not be transformed into a  process through which the decision-takers make way for the representatives or advisors of corporations to take their place. Lobbying activities must be properly documented and the resulting documentation must be publicly accessible.

Hopefully, Parliament will take note and act.

 

published in The Malta Independent on Sunday: 17 July 2016

Nature provides solution

 

 

The economy is a linear one. We extract the earth’s resources, make use of them and, subsequently, when they are beyond their useful life, we throw them away.

Clearly, the linear economy and its exponents assume that this pattern of behaviour can go on and on. However, in distinct contrast to this philosophy, the earth’s resources are limited and not infinite and consequently, a linear economy is unsustainable.

In contrast to the linear economy, the politics of sustainable development puts forward the circular economy alternative. This signifies that a product , instead of being thrown away and ending in its “grave” at the end of its useful life, gives birth to another product. This is the cradle-to-cradle philosophy, which Mother Earth has been using successfully for ages.

Nature in fact works in this manner. Take a look at any tree. At the appropriate time, it sheds its leaves, which disintegrate in the soil below. Nature does not waste the leaves shed by the tree, as they are reused and reabsorbed through the roots of the same tree as nutrients.

The circular economy is, hence, basically an imitation of nature. In environmental-speak we call this biomimicry.

Through the office of DG Environment, the European Commission, in August 2014, published a scoping study “to identify potential circular economy actions, priority sectors, material flows & value chains”.

The circular economy deals with much more than waste prevention and waste reduction. Eco-design is one particular area of action. Through eco-design the circular economy seeks to eliminate waste at the drawing board. When product ideas are still in the conceptual stage, eco-design is the tool through which such products can be planned in such a manner that they create less and less waste. This is done through subjecting the constitutive elements of the product being designed to a lifecycle assessment: that is from extraction up to end of life.

This assessment leads to the identification of all the environmental impacts of a product. Consequently the options that result in the least environmental impacts can be selected. In addition, a lifecycle assessment will also point to the best materials to be used, such that, at the end of its useful life, a product could be easily recycled.

 

In their book Cradle to Cradle: Remaking the way we make things William McDonough and Michael Braungart focus specifically on this aspect. They identify specific industrial and commercial initiatives which seek to dematerialise the economy as a result of which we end up doing more with less. The same level of service is achieved but, in the process, has substantially fewer material inputs: practical resource efficiency.

In addition to saving on material costs as well as energy, the transition from a linear to a circular economy presents numerous potential benefits. In particular, it attracts additional investment and can create thousands of jobs that realistically contribute to making the world a better place to live in.

Since last May and ending next month, the European Commission is carrying out a public consultation to be in a position to present a circular economy strategy that would be more ambitious than the that put forward by the Barroso Commission.

In the EU Roadmap for a Circular Economy strategy, the clear focus is on innovation and job creation placed within the wider EU commitment to sustainable development. The EU wants to decouple the strategy from waste management and, as a result, to factor in other policies such as competitiveness, research and innovation, environment protection, job creation and economic growth as the practical objectives of a revised circular economy strategy.

Addressing the 2015 European Circular Economy Conference last March, European Environment Commissioner Karmenu Vella emphasised that, in a circular economy, sustainability is inbuilt into the fabric of society.

I will go one further : the circular economy, if allowed to operate, will decrease the incompatibilities between the economy and nature. It will bring us closer to reality: that we live in an ecosystem which must be respected at all times and at all costs.

published in the Times of Malta : Thursday 13 July 2015

The Circular Economy: by Karmenu Vella

Speech by Commissioner Vella at the 2015 European Circular Economy Conference

Brussels, 05 March 2015

Karmenu Vella – Commissioner for Environment, Maritime Affairs and Fisheries 

Ministers,

Authorities,

Ladies and gentlemen,

Thank you for inviting me to speak at this conference.

Let me start with an ideal definition of Circular Economy;

In a circular economy, almost nothing is wasted. Re-use and remanufacturing is standard practice, and sustainability is built into the fabric of that society. There is less waste to deal with, and more is generated from limited resources. The new technologies created then bolster the competitive position on the world stage.

Our challenge is to place the European Union at the forefront of these developments.

Yesterday I was speaking at the launch of the State of the Environment Report. It says very clearly that the short-term trends related to resource efficiency are encouraging. That is thanks largely to good strategic thinking, and to good European policy. But success should breed vigilance not complacency.

The more I look at the two sides – the environment and the economy – the more convinced I become that the way forward is to fully integrate resource efficiency into the way we do business in Europe.

We know why a circular economy is a good idea. At the moment Europe is still locked into a linear production chain that is resource intensive. We obtain resources and then discard them as waste.

The full potential and value is lost. But in a world where the global population rises by more than 200 000 every day, with all the demand that places on land, water, food, feed, fibre, raw materials and energy, this is no longer sustainable.

By 2050 we would need three times more resources than we currently use. And the demand for food, feed and fibre will rise by 70 per cent. Yet more than half the ecosystems these resources depend on are already degraded, or are being used beyond their natural limits.

And ‘Ecosystem’ is perhaps the key word. We need our industrial system to behave much more like an eco-system. In an eco-system, the waste of one species is the resource to another. We need to recalibrate so that the output of one industry becomes automatically the input of another.

To address specifically the Commission’s circular economy package.

The Commission is aiming to present a new, more ambitious circular economy package late in 2015, to transform Europe into a more competitive resource-efficient economy, addressing a range of economic sectors in addition to waste.

But let us remember that the concept of the Circular Economy has been around since the 1960’s; first called the ‘spaceman’ economy, so called because everything on a spaceship has to be reused, then ‘cradle to cradle’, and now the Circular Economy. This is a long-term concept and we need a little time to get the long-term policy response right.

The decision to withdraw the waste legislative proposal was based on the need to better align it with the priorities of the new Commission. The Commission has decided to undertake a thorough reflection on how the objective of circular economy can be reached in a more efficient way that is fully compatible with the jobs and growth agenda.

Continuously advancing waste management remains a priority of course, through incentives and support for waste reduction as well as high-quality separation and collection systems. The latter ensure that resources stay within the circle and are available for future use.

Waste is not managed as well as it could be. In 2012 total waste production in the EU amounted to 2,5 billion tons, an average of 5 tons per inhabitant and per year. From this total only a limited share of 36% was effectively recycled. The largest share, 37%, was simply sent for disposal whether in landfills or on lands. In other words, around 1620 million tons of waste was lost for the EU economy. Losing this material means that significant growth and competitiveness potential is not being exploited through the development of a reuse/recycling industry in the EU.

Getting maximum value from resources requires action at all stages of the life cycle of products.

There needs to be circular economy processes reflected from the extraction of raw material to the product design, production and production of goods and through an increasing use of secondary raw-materials.

Products that last longer, have a longer warranty, or come with repair manuals and spare parts would help in this sense.

The distribution and consumption of goods must be part of that process.

To speak from the Maritime and Fisheries side of my portfolio;

Too much plastic waste, which could be recycled, and be a valuable resource, ends up as micro-plastics in our seas.

Repair and re-use schemes should be advanced.

And we should be capable of creating a genuine market for recyclates.

The Commission, when re-tabling the package, will include a new legislative proposal on waste targets, taking into account the input already given to us during public consultations, and by Council and in Parliament, in particular the comments made by many that the previous waste proposal needed to be more country-specific.

But let us remember one thing. The Circular Economy transformation on the scale we have in mind will never come about simply as a result of legislation. We need a combined approach, where smart regulation is blended with market-based instruments, innovation and incentives. These would provide businesses, including SMEs, with concrete tools and instruments and incentives to promote the transition to a circular economy.

We want to give a clearly positive signal to those waiting to invest in the circular economy. Above all the private sector needs regulatory certainty. Clarity promotes investment and investment promotes jobs. The job creation potential of the circular economy is not to be underestimated.

Despite the financial crisis, in the environmental goods and services sector, employment continued to increase during recent years, from 3 to 4.2 million jobs (2002-2011), with 20% growth in the recession years (2007- 2011). There is also an expanding global market for green industries, offering substantial export potential.

And that is the policy line we need to follow in the future. Recent estimates show how increasing resource productivity by 30 % by 2030 could boost GDP by nearly 1 %, while creating over two million jobs more than under a business as usual scenario. Waste prevention, eco-design, reuse and similar measures could bring net savings of € 600 billion, or 8 % of annual turnover, for businesses in the EU, while reducing total annual greenhouse gas emissions by 2-4 %.

The Commission will continue to promote eco-innovation and investment in clean technologies to build a circular economy. The preparatory report on the European Strategic Investment Plan highlights the importance of resource efficiency, identifying it as one of the key objectives. This should translate into firm support for eco-innovation projects, actively complementing the considerable support already available via the European Structural and Investment Funds.

The new approach is two-fold:

First, we will of course present a new legislative proposal on waste targets. This new proposal will use the expert knowledge already gained to be more country sensitive. I want to assure you that we will keep our EU wide goals on recycling levels

Our success will be measured by how well policies are implemented on the ground. So we will have to set smart, realistic objectives and focus on implementation.

Second, to close that circle, we will prepare a roadmap for further action on the circular economy. It will consider two aspects:

– upstream: in the production and use phase, before products become waste; and

– downstream: after products are no longer waste, looking at what can be done to encourage and develop a market for the recycled products.

The work on this half of the circle will take the form of a roadmap where we identify what can be done rapidly, and what we should propose at a later stage.

Both these aspects – the waste targets review and the roadmap – will come together before the end of this year. I hope you will agree with me that this is quite a broad and ambitious programme.

But we are not starting from scratch. Europe already has a wide range of rules and instruments contributing to a circular economy: for instance in the area of emissions, waste or chemicals. If a product contains hazardous substances, for instance, it cannot be recycled at high level of quality.

I remind you of the State of the Environment Report. From now to 2050 we must double our efforts to encourage resource efficiency. Europe remains a place where skill levels are sky high but where resources levels are rock bottom. Innovation and enterprise is Europe’s passport to a secure future.

We want to get Europe growing again. We will discuss the greening of the European Semester, and the EU’s resource efficiency agenda tomorrow, in Council, with Environment ministers. Pressures on resources and the environment are one of the four main factors that can hamper growth in the long-term. This much emerged from our review of the Europe 2020 strategy.

There are significant savings to be made with circular economy approaches.

The circular economy, can contribute further to the objectives of the Energy Union and the Climate Package.

It can have an immediate impact on the environment;

I am convinced that by turning into a truly recycling society we will not only serve the environment, but also ourselves.

So I count on you to bring the reflection forward. As I mentioned, we will consult widely before choosing the most appropriate tools.

Your input to this process will be very valuable and, as always, I am keen to listen to all views.

Thank you for your attention.

Fin-Naxxar: il-bye-election ta’ Karmenu Vella

 

Nhar il-Ħamis iNews huma u jirrappurtaw l-andament tal-bye-election ta’ Karmenu Vella irrappurtaw hekk:

“12:15: Hekk kif bħalissa qed joqrob lejn tmiemu t-tielet għadd, wasal fis-sala tan-Naxxar id-Deputat Chairperson ta’ Alternattiva Demokratika, Carmel Cacopardo, li wkoll qed jsegwi bir-reqqa l-andament. Cacopardo wkoll kien ikkontesta l-elezzjoni ġenerali fuq il-ħames distrett.”

Fil-waqt li hu minnu li nhar il-Ħamis għall-12.15pm kont fis-sala tal-għadd tal-voti fin-Naxxar tajjeb li nippreċiża li s’issa għadni qatt ma ikkontestajt l-Elezzjoni Ġenerali fuq il-Ħames Distrett.

Tlajt fis-sala tal-għadd tal-voti għal xi siegħa biex nosserva mill-qrib il-voti u l-mod kif kienu qed jitqassmu l-preferenzi. Wara l-ewwel għadd l-affarijiet kienu ċari ħafna. L-għadd innifsu kien qed juri distakk ta’ madwar 350 vot bejn il-Professur Zammit u l-Farell. Imma l-voti li kien qed jakkumula Robert Bugeja kienu qed juru sa minn kmieni li dak id-distakk seta jonqos sostanzjalment inkella jisparixxi. Kif fil-fatt ġara. F’numru kbir mill-voti ta’ Bugeja l-Professur Zammit kellu bejn il-11 u t-13-il preferenza!

Għax numru mhux żgħir ta’ votanti, fir-realta’, waqt li ġeneralment jivvutaw b’mod raġunat l-ewwel erbgħa sa ħames preferenzi, ftit li xejn jagħtu każ tal-preferenzi ta’ wara. Numru żgħir ma jkomplux filwaqt li oħrajn ikomplu jagħtu l-preferenzi mingħajr xi ordni preferut. Ġeneralment jibqgħu nieżlin alfabetikament wara r-raba’ jew il-ħames preferenza. Allura s-sekwenza tal-preferenzi li jibqa’ tiddependi minn fejn ikun tniżżel in-numru 4 jew in-numru 5!

Kważi dejjem hekk ġara u din id-darba ma kienitx eċċezzjoni. Eċċezzjonijiet ftit ikun hemm u din ma kienitx waħda minnhom!

 

L-approvazzjoni ta’ Karmenu Vella

Uħud qed jogħruk jdejhom li Karmenu Vella kien approvat miż-żewġ kumitati tal-Parlament Ewropew li għarbluh.

Kien mistenni li jsir hekk minkejja li uħud kellhom u għad għandhom dubji dwar dan. Huma esprimew dawn id-dubji fil-laqgħat li saru, kemm fil-pubbliku kif ukoll fil-privat.

Il-kritika ndirizzata lejn Karmenu Vella kienet ta’ żewġ tipi.

L-ewwel tip ta’ kritika kienet dik dwar ir-responsabbiltajiet tiegħu. Fir-realta’ din kienet kritika iktar indirizzata lejn Jean Claude Juncker u l-mod kif huwa qassam ir-responsabbiltajiet bejn il-Kummissarji differenti proposti. Id-diffikulta tal-Membri Parlamentari Ewropej kienet li minħabba li diversi materji ta’ importanza ambjentali ġew assenjati bħala responsabbilta ta’ Kummissarji oħra huma riedu jkunu jafu l-fehma ta’ Karmenu Vella dwarhom. Dan minħabba li bħala membru tal-Kummissjoni Ewropeja Karmenu Vella bla dubju ser ikun mitlub jieħu sehem fit-teħid ta’ deċiżjonijiet dwarhom. Allura kien meħtieġ li jkun stabilit x’kienet il-ħegga u l-viżjoni ambjentali ta’ Karmenu Vella. Izda dwar dan ħarġu ferm disappuntati.

It-tieni tip ta’ kritika kienet dwar il-preparazzjoni. Karmenu Vella kellu ħmistax-il jum (biss) biex jipprepara ruħ. Kellu preparazzjoni raġjonevoli dwar is-Sajd u l-Politika Marittima imma l- preparazzjoni dwar l-ambjent kienet waħda ferm fqira.

Imma xorta ġie approvat.

Għaliex sar dan?

L-unika grupp li appoġġah b’mod assolut kien dak Soċjalista. Il-Popolari kellhom riżervi dwar it-tweġibiet li ta’ imma kienu lesti li jagħtuh ċans. Il-Liberali riedu assugurazzjoni dwar l-impenn tal-Kummissjoni kollha favur l-iżvilupp sostenibbli. Il-Greens dehrilhom li ma kienx addattat u fuq kollox li ma kienx ser joħroġ għonqu għall-Ambjent u Sajd jekk ikun ikkonfrontat minn interessi proposti.

Huwa ċar li ġaladarba qablu bejniethom is-Soċjalisti u l-Popolari, Karmenu Vella kellu l-appoġġ tal-maġġoranza fil-kumitati tal-Parlament Ewropew li deher quddiemhom. Wara li s-Soċjalisti iddeċidew li jagħtu l-appoġġ lill-kandidatura ta’ Jean Claude Juncker bħala President tal-Kummissjoni kien ċar li ħlief f’kaz li jinqala’ xi ħaġa gravi m’hu ser ikun hemm l-ebda Kummissarju Socjalista jew Popolari li ma jkunx approvat. Jekk ma jseħħx dan, kull naħa għandha x’titlef. (Nafu li hemm ta’ l-inqas sitt Kummissarji li qegħdin taħt attakk.)

Fil-ġranet li ġejjin irridu naraw kif ser jiżviluppaw il-laqgħat tal-Parlamentari mal-Kummissarji proposti kif ukoll kemm Jean Claude Juncker ser jagħti kaz tal-kritika li saret, lilu u lill-Kummissarji proposti.

Bl-istampa sħiħa d-diskussjoni tkun ferm iktar interessanti.

 

Żieda : 8.20am

Sadanittant il-BBC għadu kemm ħabbar li Jonathan Hill, il-Kummissarju prospettiv nominat mir-Renju Unit għadu ma ġiex approvat mill-Kumitat Parlamentari. Għadhom m’humiex sodisfatti u fil-fatt sejħulu biex jidher mill-ġdid għal iktar mistoqsijijiet il-ġimgħa d-dieħla.

 

Anke l-Kummissarju Spanjol għandu l-problemi biex ikun ikkonfermat. Ara hawn.