Raül Romeva i Rueda

Diumenge comença la temporada de pesca de Tonyina Vermella, però personalment demano (un cop més) aturar la pesca, i enguany amb una raó afegida: Líbia. A continuació adjunto la carta que acabo d’enviar a la Comissària Damanaki demanant-li que la Comissió Europea lideri el tancament.

Re: Bluefin tuna fishery and the Libyan crisis

Dear Commissioner

Over the past few months, I have been watching events unfold in Libya with horror, and sincerely hope that the crisis is resolved quickly and as peacefuly as possible.

In recent days, a new element has emerged as a consequence of those developments, though, that is also of great concern. That is the bluefin tuna fishery. The current crisis and prolonged military activity mean that Libya is no longer in a position to fulfil its responsibilities as a CPC in ICCAT, a fact reflected by the failure of the Compliance Committee of ICCAT to approve the Libyan fishing plan for 2011. As a consequence, all fish caught by Libyan vessels will be IUU fish. Further, given the complicated structure of the bluefin tuna fishery in terms of vessel ownership, transshipments etc., as well as the concentration of fishing effort in Libyan waters and the fact that Libya has no farms of its own, it will be extremely difficult, if not impossible, to verify the legality of much of the tuna that will be caught this year. In short, I fear that the bluefin tuna recovery plan for 2011 is seriously compromised and will probably be a complete failure.

I feel that the EU should do its utmost to minimise the threat to the recovery of bluefin tuna in this situation.

The best solution would be for ICCAT CPCs to close the bluefin tuna fishery for 2011. Such an action would be completely justified given the impossibility of controlling fishing operations in a significant part of the most important fishing waters and thus the legality of the bluefin tuna that is caught. A closure for 2011 would also have the added benefit on increasing the probability of recovery of the stock from its current depleted status. I understand that this is a multilateral forum though and this would be difficult.

The EU has major responsibilities for the bluefing tuna stock, given its role as flag State, market State, port State, farm State, coastal State and State of beneficial ownership, all of which are clearly defined in the EU’s control regulation and IUU regulation.

There are a number of actions that the EU could take with respect to its own involvement in the fishery, before any action is taken by ICCAT.

Personally, I feel that the EU should simply close its own purse seine fishery for 2011, given the situation outlined above and the inevitable difficulties in verifying the catch certificates. I am very aware that this would be a politically very difficult decision.

At the very least, though, there are a number of very specific, fully justified decisions that the EU could take. These include:

• prohibition for any EU-flagged vessel to enter Libyan waters or, preferably, waters within a radius of the outer limit of the Libyan zone;
• closure of all EU ports to Libyan-flagged vessels (fishing, tug);
• prohibition for all EU farms or EU tugboats to accept bluefin tuna from any Libyan-flagged vessel;
• prohibition for all EU farms or EU tugboats to accept bluefin tuna from any tug that has entered Libyan waters, as shown by its VMS records;
• refusal to allow Libyan-flagged vessels from leaving any EU port (France has reportedly done this so far, whereas Malta allowed the Libyan fleet to leave Valletta);
• prohibition on receiving, via any third-country vessel, any bluefin tuna that has come from Libyan waters or Libyan fishing vessels as determined by the BCD.

In my view, these are the absolute minimum steps that the Commission should take, and would be fully justified in taking, in an attempt to reduce IUU fishing on this stock.

Yours sincerely,

Raül Romeva i Rueda

La meva oposició a l’actual sistema de doble seu del Parlament Europeu és prou coneguda. Ahir, dia d’Europa (9 maig), fins i tot hi vaig dedicar un Garrotweet:

Novament cap a Estrasburg.
Quin absurd comunitari,
i insensata la despesa!
Explicar-ho es un calvari!

D’aquest tema n’he parlat abastament en aquest bloc (podeu trobar diversos apunts (Pas a favor d’aturar l’absurd nomadisme europarlamentari per exemple), i en podeu trobar més apunts a la categoria Doble Seu, transparència i Rendició de Comptes).

Avui hem tornat a tenir una petita victòria, parcial i tímida, a favor d’aturar l’absurditat que avui per avui suposa mantenir el cost de dues grans seus com són la de Brussel.les i la d’Estrasburg. Ha estat durant la votació de l’informe Itälä relatiu a la revisió pressupostària de 2009 del Parlament Europeu. El text comptava amb una article, el 132, que a l’hora de la votació alguns grups han volgut dividir en tres parts:

Part 1 article 132. “Takes note of the budgetary constraints many Member States face as a result of the financial and economic crisis and the need to critically review potential savings at all levels including at Union level; in light of this situation, stresses that real savings could be achieved if Parliament only had one workplace in the same location”.

Lògicament, com a Verds/ALE hem votat favorablement a les tres parts, però malauradament només hem tingut majoria per guanyar la primera de les tres. Les altres dues han quedat derrotades (tot i que per ben poc). Com que no ha estat una votació nominal, però, no podem saber del cert quants MEPs han votat a favor i quants en contra.

Sigui com sigui es un fet simbòlic, esclar, ja que la decisió depèn finalment del Consell, i més concretament de que França (Estrasburg) accepti deixar d’allotjar la seu del PE.

I per si encara queda algun dubte sobre quina és la meva postura al respecte, la reitero: No té cap mena de sentit mantenir la doble seu, ni per raons econòmiques (prop de 200 milions d’Euros), ni per raons ecològiques (la petjada ambiental dels desplaçaments és enorme), ni per eficiència política (quin sentit té anar-nos-en a Estrasburg quan les altres dues institucions europees, les que hem de ‘controlar’ estan a Brussel.les permanentment?).

Foto: Hemicicle d’Estrasburg

Benvolgudes/Benvolguts,

Des del Grup Verds/ALE hem impulsat un concurs de relats sobre la temàtica Dones i Canvi Climàtic. Adjunto a continuació les bases del concurs per si algú hi està interessat/da.

****

Estimados/Estimadas,

Desde el Grupo Verdes/ALE hemos impulsado un concurso de relatos sobre la tematica Mujeres y Cambio Climatico. Adjunto a continuación las bases del concurso por si alguien está interessado/a.

Essay contest ‘Women and climate change’: Call for papers deadline 1 June

Deadline : 1st of June
Send in essays to : greens.essaycontest@europarl.europa.eu
See conditions below

The role of human activity in accelerating climate change is beyond doubt. The fourth assessment report (4AR) of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), confirmed that overwhelming scientific evidence links the impact of human activity to climate change and unless action to significantly reduce emissions of greenhouse gases is taken, the world is on a path to runaway warming.

Why is it so important to integrate gender aspects into debates on climate change?

Climate change and climate impacts are not gender neutral. Gender equality is a critical component of responses to climate change at all levels ? it should be integrated in all aspects of climate change planning and decision making.

At first glance, it might seem unintuitive to link climate change and gender issues. However, since societies still largely rely on gendered roles and responsibilities, both sexes do not have the same impact on climate change, and perhaps more importantly, are differently affected by it.

Women are disproportionately affected

Gender aspects of climate change are a matter of justice, human rights, and human security. Women are the poorest people in the poorest areas. Moreover, several studies indicate that the death rate in natural disasters can be four times higher for women. We have compelling data on how women are more vulnerable to climate change. It is thus important to be committed to gender sensitive approaches. We must adapt the mechanisms in place so that they reduce, or at least do not increase the gender issues.

Women empowerment and women’s role

Women are change agents on both household and community levels with regard to natural resource management. Women are long?time leaders on poverty eradication and sustainability, and gender equality is a key issue in the climate change debate. If we do not implement gender?sensitive policies to fight climate change, it will have disastrous consequences on the gender balance.

On the other hand, if we include and empower women, who are often responsible for agriculture, food and water supply, as well as first education of the next generation, we will do a better job in addressing climate change and its consequences.

Mainstreaming the gender perspective is not only a sensible choice for our societies; it is a better, more efficient way to reach our goals.

Because this subject is at the very core of our preoccupations as members of the Green Party, we need to have better information and understanding on this subject, and answer these questions:

How can we counteract the disproportionate burden of climate change on women? How to empower women so that they become a key partner in reducing climate change?

How can gender equality be fully integrated into climate policies?

We encourage everyone to send us a paper with ideas and propositions on these issues.

TERMS OF PARTICIPATION

By taking part in the contest, participants agree on … follow

… the terms of participation.

How and when to hand in my paper?
All papers have to be sent per e?mail to Greens.essaycontest@europarl.europa.eu before 1 June 2011, midnight. Papers sent after the deadline will not be accepted.

Who can apply?
Everyone.

Do I have to be a European citizen?
No, contributions from around the world are welcome.

About languages
Papers can be written in one of the four following languages: English, French, German and Spanish.

What kind of paper?
Papers should have the written form of an essay.

How long should the paper be?
Papers should be between 20.000 and 28.000 characters (with spaces) long.

How should it be presented?
Papers should be typed. No handwritten paper will be accepted.

What will happen next?
A jury made up of Green Members of the European Parliament, representatives of the European Green Party, the Federation of Young European Greens, Green Foundations, EGGO (European Green Gender Observatory) and NGOs will select the best essays.

Depending on the number of papers submitted, a pre?jury might do a pre?selection for the final jury.

What is the prize for the winner?
First of all, the best three essay writers will be invited to the Green Summer University in Frankfurt (Oder) and Slubice (1). This invitation includes transportation costs, hotel room for three nights and meals for the four days

The best essays will also be published in their original language and English, with a preface from Members of the Parliament and members of the jury. This book will be printed out and distributed during the University (to be confirmed depending on printing delays). The winners will get 10 copies each.

An event will be organised for the winners to read their essays to a selected audience, followed by a private dinner with members of the jury.

(1) The Summer University is a European event organized by the Greens in the European Parliament. Last time, it brought together almost 1000 people from all walks of life. Greens and non?Greens, NGO representatives, scientists, managers and trade unionists, intellectuals and artists, students and other young people attended 4 plenary sessions and 46 workshops, 10 cultural events and 10 excursions.

Foto: Dones i homes deixem una petjada ambiental molt diferent. Font: Nordic Gender Institute

Below I explain the reasons why I am opposed to
the EU and Member States to increase subsidies to fishing to compensate for the
rise in fuel prices.

This was a topic today, in the European Parliament,
following a proposal made some colleagues, from the PPE, who claim aid increases.

It is somewhat curious that the same people who
proclaim the close of the welfare state do not have too many problems to subsidize
environmentally destructive activities and to jeopardize thus the move towards
a more responsible and sustainable fishing.

Political groups have each prepared a resolution
that will play tomorrow negotiate and vote on thursday.

My rationale as Greens Vicepresident and
Fisheries Committee Member is the following:

    A whereas all sectors in the EU dependent on
fossil oil are equally affected by the increased oil prices, except aviation
and shipping (including fisheries) since these sectors are excluded from energy
taxes on fuel (Council Directive 2003/96/EC of 27 October 2003) and therefore
these sectors are proportionally already much less affected by an increase in
fuel prices than other sectors;

    B whereas more than 70% of European fish stocks
are overfished;

    C whereas fuel subsidies, including exemption
from fuel taxes, are well known to contribute to, and can be the factor that
economically catalyses overfishing, since low operating costs allow fishing to
continue on overfished or depleted stocks;

    D whereas an increase in fuel prices, according
to the Commission Communication (2008)453 is hitting in particular those with
the largest energy consumption most, i.e. beamtrawlers, with fuel costs in some
cases corresponding to 60% of value of the landed fish, while coastal vessels
fishing with passive gear are far less affected, with fuel costs corresponding
to only between 5 and 20 % of value of landed fish;

    E whereas the situation is exacerbated by the
inability of many fishermen to pass on the costs of their activities in their
sale price, owing to the current market structure and the dominance of
corporate intermediaries,

    F whereas the global fishing fleet has been
estimated to account for at least 1,2% of global oil consumption;

    G whereas the de-minimis, state aid to the
fisheries sector (Commission Regulation (EC) No 875/2007 of 24 July 2007) was
already increased tenfold in 2007 from €3000 to €30 000;

    H whereas the EU has recognised the IPCC
conclusions that industrialised countries need to reduce their greenhouse gas
emissions by 25-40% by 2020 compared to 1990 levels and the European Council
has decided on an EU objective to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 80-95% by
2050;

    I whereas the European Parliament called for the
EU to shift to a 30% greenhouse gas reduction target for 2020 in its resolution
adopted 25 November 2010;

    J whereas EU Member States at the Biodiversity
summit in Nagoya in October 2010 are committed to eliminate environmentally
harmful subsidies by 2020 at the latest;

    K whereas G-20 Leaders committed in 2009 to
phase out inefficient fossil fuel subsidies over the medium term;

    L whereas in many Member States, the available
EU subsidies have too often been used to support the development of
large-scale, energy-intensive, environmentally destructive fishing fleets, on
the assumption that energy would remain inexpensive;

    M whereas high energy costs are not a temporary
phenomenon, but rather structural and permanent in nature, and whereas the
sector must adapt accordingly;

    N whereas certain Member States have initiated
schemes aimed at reducing fuel consumption by their fleets and whereas such
innovations are to be supported;

    O whereas the discussions in WTO in the context
of the Doha round are focussed on how to eliminate distorting fisheries
subsidies;

  
1. Concludes that there is an urgent need for the European fishing
fleets to restructure so as to move away from energy-intensive, environmentally
destructive fishing vessels and gear and to adopt more benign practices that
require less energy and are more sustainable in the long term, environmentally,
socially and economically;

  
2. Calls upon the Commission to launch a study of the effects of
removing the Member States’ obligation to exempt marine fuel from taxation,
introducing a minimum level of energy tax on marine fuel and including the
maritime transport sector in the EU emissions trading system;

  
3. Considers that granting more public money to the fisheries sector
because of increased fuel prices would send the wrong signal during the reform
of the CFP and provide an incentive for vessel owners to use more powerful and
fuel-consuming engines;

  
4. Considers that fuel subsidies, including foregone tax, result in
reduced costs that restore profitability and create incentives for continued
fishing in the face of declining catches, leading to overfishing, fleet
overcapitalization, reduced economic efficiency of the sector, and lost
resource rent;

  
5. Believes that an increase in de-minimis from €30 000 to compensate
for an increase in fuel prices would hinder adaptation of the fishing industry
to the inevitable continued increase in fuel prices that affects all sectors
dependent on fossil fuels, bearing in mind that the fishing sector is less
vulnerable than other sectors due to the tax exemption;

  
6. Believes that increasing fuel subsidies, at the time of general
cutbacks in government spending, and following pledges by the G-20 leaders to
phase out fuel subsidies and agreement by WTO members to bring fisheries
subsidies within WTO disciplines, is likely to undermine EU’s leadership in
ongoing negotiation processes, sending a signal that would encourage other
countries to also increase subsidies and contributing to a vicious circle that
has already made operations costs of destructive fishing techniques on the
worlds oceans much too low, thus contributing to disastrous overfishing;

A continuació exposo les raons per les quals m’oposo a que la UE i els Estats Membres augmentin les subvencions a la pesca per compensar l’alça de preus del fuel.

El tema és motiu avui de debat al Parlament Europeu arran d’una proposta que han fet alguns col.legues del PPE que reclamen que augmentem les ajudes.

No deixa de ser curiós que els mateixos que proclamen l’estretament de l’Estat del Benestar no tinguin massa problemes a subvencionar activitats manifestament destructives del medi ambient a curt termini, i posin així en perill l’activitat pesquera artesanal i responsable a mig i llarg termini. 

Per tal que cadascú en tregui les seves conclusions, els diferents grups hem preparat cadascun una proposta de resolució que demà tocarà negociar, i demà passat votar.

Els meus arguments en tant que membre de Verds/ALE són els següents:

• whereas all sectors in the EU dependent on fossil oil are equally affected by the increased oil prices, except aviation and shipping (including fisheries) since these sectors are excluded from energy taxes on fuel (Council Directive 2003/96/EC of 27 October 2003) and therefore these sectors are proportionally already much less affected by an increase in fuel prices than other sectors;
• whereas more than 70% of European fish stocks are overfished;
• whereas fuel subsidies, including exemption from fuel taxes, are well known to contribute to, and can be the factor that economically catalyses overfishing, since low operating costs allow fishing to continue on overfished or depleted stocks;
• whereas an increase in fuel prices, according to the Commission Communication (2008)453 is hitting in particular those with the largest energy consumption most, i.e. beamtrawlers, with fuel costs in some cases corresponding to 60% of value of the landed fish, while coastal vessels fishing with passive gear are far less affected, with fuel costs corresponding to only between 5 and 20 % of value of landed fish;
• whereas the situation is exacerbated by the inability of many fishermen to pass on the costs of their activities in their sale price, owing to the current market structure and the dominance of corporate intermediaries,
• whereas the global fishing fleet has been estimated to account for at least 1,2% of global oil consumption;
• whereas the de-minimis, state aid to the fisheries sector (Commission Regulation (EC) No 875/2007 of 24 July 2007) was already increased tenfold in 2007 from €3000 to €30 000;
• whereas the EU has recognised the IPCC conclusions that industrialised countries need to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions by 25-40% by 2020 compared to 1990 levels and the European Council has decided on an EU objective to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 80-95% by 2050;
• whereas the European Parliament called for the EU to shift to a 30% greenhouse gas reduction target for 2020 in its resolution adopted 25 November 2010;
• whereas EU Member States at the Biodiversity summit in Nagoya in October 2010 are committed to eliminate environmentally harmful subsidies by 2020 at the latest;
• whereas G-20 Leaders committed in 2009 to phase out inefficient fossil fuel subsidies over the medium term;
• whereas in many Member States, the available EU subsidies have too often been used to support the development of large-scale, energy-intensive, environmentally destructive fishing fleets, on the assumption that energy would remain inexpensive;
• whereas high energy costs are not a temporary phenomenon, but rather structural and permanent in nature, and whereas the sector must adapt accordingly;
• whereas certain Member States have initiated schemes aimed at reducing fuel consumption by their fleets and whereas such innovations are to be supported;
• whereas the discussions in WTO in the context of the Doha round are focussed on how to eliminate distorting fisheries subsidies;

0. Concludes that there is an urgent need for the European fishing fleets to restructure so as to move away from energy-intensive, environmentally destructive fishing vessels and gear and to adopt more benign practices that require less energy and are more sustainable in the long term, environmentally, socially and economically;
0. Calls upon the Commission to launch a study of the effects of removing the Member States’ obligation to exempt marine fuel from taxation, introducing a minimum level of energy tax on marine fuel and including the maritime transport sector in the EU emissions trading system;
0. Considers that granting more public money to the fisheries sector because of increased fuel prices would send the wrong signal during the reform of the CFP and provide an incentive for vessel owners to use more powerful and fuel-consuming engines;
0. Considers that fuel subsidies, including foregone tax, result in reduced costs that restore profitability and create incentives for continued fishing in the face of declining catches, leading to overfishing, fleet overcapitalization, reduced economic efficiency of the sector, and lost resource rent;
0. Believes that an increase in de-minimis from €30 000 to compensate for an increase in fuel prices would hinder adaptation of the fishing industry to the inevitable continued increase in fuel prices that affects all sectors dependent on fossil fuels, bearing in mind that the fishing sector is less vulnerable than other sectors due to the tax exemption;
0. Believes that increasing fuel subsidies, at the time of general cutbacks in government spending, and following pledges by the G-20 leaders to phase out fuel subsidies and agreement by WTO members to bring fisheries subsidies within WTO disciplines, is likely to undermine EU’s leadership in ongoing negotiation processes, sending a signal that would encourage other countries to also increase subsidies and contributing to a vicious circle that has already made operations costs of destructive fishing techniques on the worlds oceans much too low, thus contributing to disastrous overfishing;

Foto: Porta d’un arrossegador afaitant el sòl marí. Font: Greenview

Fa un any i mig feia aquesta reflexió en el marc d’unes jornades a Roses destinades a avaluar la importància de la creació de reserves marines. Els plantejaments segueixen essent vàlids en el marc de la reforma de la Política Pesquera Comuna.

La intervenció es divideix en dues parts: Part 1 i Part 2.

 ****

Hace un año y medio hacia esta reflexión en el marco de unas jornadas en Rosas destinadas a evaluar la importancia de la creació de reserves marinas. Los planteamientos siguen siendo válidos en el marco de la Reforma de la Política Pesquera Comuna.

La intervención se divide en dos partes: Parte 1 y Parte 2.

Foto: Mapa de zones marines protegides. Font: WWF.

Avui s’acaba el termini per presentar comentaris a la propostes de proves d’estrès per a les centrals nuclears europees. En una primera lectura, però, ja podem veure com el principal problema de la proposta és que no té en compte potencialitats que si bé no són probables (per sort) en cap cas són impossibles, com són determinades accions de caràcter terrorista. Faig meves, per tant, les reflexions i inquietuds de la nostra co-presidenta i experta en matèria nuclear, Rebecca Harms.

Nuclear safety
EU nuclear stress tests set to fall short of thorough risk assessment, ignore terror threat

A decision on the proposed EU nuclear stress tests is expected as early as next week, with the draft stress test criteria already in circulation (1). The Greens are concerned that, based on current drafts, the stress tests would fail to thoroughly assess the risk of nuclear reactors, notably excluding assessment of the risk of terrorist attacks, such as the impact of a passenger airplane crash. Commenting on the draft nuclear stress tests, Greens/EFA co-president and nuclear expert Rebecca Harms said:

“Based on current drafts, the proposed EU nuclear stress tests look set to fall far short of rigorously assessing the potential risks and safety of Europe’s nuclear reactors. As currently constituted, the stress tests would fail to assess the risks or ‘stress’ posed to nuclear reactors from a host of potential scenarios. This only serves to underline fears that these stress tests are part of a strategy on the part of the nuclear industry to assuage growing public concerns about nuclear safety and lull the public back to a false sense of security on the risks of nuclear.

“Crucially, the stress tests would fail to assess the ability of a reactor to withstand the impact of passenger plane crash, as well as other potential terrorist attacks. The foiled plot at Sellafield yesterday evening is a timely reminder of the very real threat of a terrorist attack on nuclear installations, which would have catastrophic consequences. That this would simply be omitted is scandalous.

“From the outset, we have been concerned that allowing the nuclear industry to set the parameters of the proposed nuclear stress tests was the wrong approach. It is now clear that this poacher-turned-gamekeeper approach to nuclear safety is flawed. The Commission and Council should instead be moving to immediately shut down the most dangerous reactors, where the threat is already widely known, and developing a comprehensive nuclear phase out strategy.”

(1) The deadline for comments on the draft stress criteria is tomorrow (5 May). The consultation and drafting process is being coordinated by the nuclear energy regulators authority (WENRA). http://www.wenra.org/extra/news/?module_instance=1&id=31

Draft: http://www.wenra.org/dynamaster/file_archive/110421/0ea2c97b35d658d73d1013f765e0c87d/StressTestsSpecifications2011-04-21.pdf

Font gràfic: Google maps

Avui els eurodiputats catalans Maria Badia (PSC),
Ramon Tremosa (CiU), Oriol Junqueras (ERC) i Raül Romeva (ICV) hem fet balanç
de l’ús de la llengua catalana a les institucions europees i hem hagut de reconèixer que
la situació del català a la UE segueix encallada. Ho hem fet acompanyant l’Ignasi Centelles, de l’Organització Horitzó Europa, amb qui hem valorat el full de ruta al qual ens vàrem comprometre fa un any. Diversos mitjans han cobert la roda, entre ells la Raquel Correa, de l’Agència Catalana de Noticies (ACN), que ha fet la peça que podeu trobar aquí.

I malgrat tot cal seguir reclamant, fins que s’aconsegueixi, que el català sigui una llengua NORMAL a la UE.

Reitero la meva frustració pel fet que una cosa tan simple, tan òbvia, tan fàcil d’aconseguir, tan raonable, tan necessària, tan barata, tan beneficiosa per l’europeïsme, tan bàsica si es vol ser coherent amb la idea que vivim en una Europa de drets i deures, costi tant d’aconseguir.

Avui hem manifestat novament, al PE, la impotència que sentim alguns de nosaltres per aquest fet, però a la vegada hem reiterat també la nostra convicció que la darrera cosa que podem fer és defallir.

No sé quan, ni com, ni qui, ho acabarà aconseguint, només sé que s’acabarà aconseguint, per què és legítim, i per tant, faré tt allò que estigui al meu abast per contribuir a que algun dia puguem donar aquesta bona noticia. Avui, però, no ha estat possible.

Foto: durant la roda de premsa d’avui. Font: ACN.

Diversos científics ens recomanen que, per conservar els nostres mars i oceans, i que en el futur els nostres infants en puguin gaudir, hauríem d’acordar que almenys en el 20% d’aquests fossin decretats Reserves Marines. Tenint en compte que en l’actualitat la superfície marina protegida no arriba ni a l’1%, l’aventura es preveu titànica.

I és precisament ara que estem buscant sortides a aquestes crisi multidimensional quan té més sentit que mai.

Com explica perfectament un dels científics catalans més internacionals, n’Enric Sala, una reserva marina no deixa de ser res més que un compte d’estalvi del qual se’n deriven uns beneficis a partir dels interessos que genera (siguin ambientals, econòmics o socials). Mentre mantinguem els diners del compte allà, sense tocar-los, podrem viure dels interessos, però si els retirem del fons que conforma el compte d’estalvi, aviat ens quedarem sense res.

Per altra banda, com també diu n’Enric, ningú ho podrà aconseguir sol, ens cal un compromís de múltiples actors, fant cadascun d’ells la seva feina. Jo ja fa temps que estic convençut que aquesta és una mesura urgent, prioritària, vital! I confio que quan vegeu aquesta extraordinària exposició que fa n’Enric, entendreu perquè ho dic.

Tan de bo algun dia siguem majoria els qui pensem així, però mentrestant ens tocarà treballar per arribar-hi.

Quan més triguem a posar-nos-hi, més ens costarà fer-ho, i ja anem tard.

Comencem per creurens’ho, comencem ara, comencem aquí.

Gràcies Enric, per il·luminar-nos el camí de manera tan clarivident.

‘Treure del mar peixos abans que tinguin temps a reproduir-se és, simplement, idiota’. No se m’acut una manera més fina de dir-ho. La frase, però, no és meva, sinó que l’he manllevat a un dels cientifics, Reiner Froese, que aquest matí hem tingut ocasió d’escoltar al Parlament Europeu.

És, malauradament, un símptoma de l’absurd. Urgeix canviar la dinàmica ja, abans no sigui massa tard.

És per això que els Verds/ALE, i concretament els dos responsables de la Comissió de Pesca, Isabella Lovin i jo mateix, hem organitzat aquest matí un hearing (debat) amb alguns cientifics i la Comissària d’Afers Marins per tal que ens expliquin de quina manera podem saber quant de peix podem pescar de manera sostenible? (How much fish can be safely caught?)

Del debat m’han quedat clares algunes idees, que resumeixo:

Primer: El 42% del comerç global de peix i derivats són importacions de la UE. Per tant, som altament responsables de la situació actual, i ens toca liderar el canvi model.

Segon: tothom té un paper. Els científics han de poder determinar, sense
ingerències polítiques, quant de peix es pot pescar de manera sostenible…

…
els responsables polítics han d’establir les mesures de gestió basant-se en
recomanacions científiques i el principi de precaució…

… el sector ha
d’emprendre reformes estructurals assumint que sense peix no hi ha activitat possible…

…
i els consumidors/es han de ser conscients que el peix és un bé comu (i cada cop més escàs) i que
han de practicar i promoure un consum responsable.

Tercer, com a societat hem de respondre a la següent pregunta: quin es nivell de risc (per a la sostenibilitat i la conservació dels estocs) que com a
societat estem disposats a assumir en l’explotacio d’un recurs/bé comu, com es
la pesca?

En seguirem parlant.

The Greens/EFA are pleased to invite you to
the public hearing on the reform of the Common Fisheries Policy organised by
MEPs Isabella Lövin, Raül Romeva i Rueda, Jean-Paul Besset and Keith Taylor:

HOW MUCH FISH CAN BE SAFELY CAUGHT?

Tuesday 3 May 2011 9.00-12.30

European Parliament P7C50

Greens believe that a precautionary approach
must form the basis of the Common Fisheries Policy. The reform must ensure a
CFP in which decisions on fisheries management do not lead to further depletion
of fish stocks but allow them to recover to abundant levels that can support
sustainable exploitation in the long term.

Presentations will be made by :

    * Commissioner Maria Damanaki

    * fisheries scientists from Europe and Australia
(Justin Cooke, Rainer Froese, Tony Smith, Poul Degnbol)

    * Greenpeace (Sebastian Losada).

The importance of independent scientific
advice will be addressed, and the Australian approach to management will be
explained.

Avui he perdut almenys un votant per ICV. Demano disculpes als meus companys i companyes per això.

El cas és que ahir al vespre, en veure al TN que França havia declarat les curses de braus (o corrides) Patrimoni Cultural Immaterial, i que demanaven a la UNESCO que fes el mateix a escala mundial), vaig escriure el següent tuit: ‘Les curses de braus son tortura, no cultura/ Las corridas son tortura, no cultura / Les ‘corridas’ sont torture, pas culture.’

Una persona que es va identificar com un votant esporàdic d’ICV va respondre a aquest tuit dient: ‘@raulromeva per aquesta rucada no us votaré. Altrament, ho faria’.

Al meu torn, aquest matí he respost: ‘La rucada es torturar x plaer, no creus? i seguidament he afegit, ja en un tuit obert (no dirigit personalment a aquesta persona), el següent: ‘Lamento q hi hagi qui digui q no ens votara pq estem a favor de prohibir curses de braus, tanmateix, ESTIC A FAVOR DE PROHIBIR-LES.’

I la resposta definitiva per part d’aquesta persona ha estat enviar-me el següent: @raulromeva confirmat, no us voto. I és una llàstima. Ho he fet moltes vegades.

Per descomptat, respecto tots els motius, tant per votar una o altra opció política, com per no fer-ho. Aquesta és la gràcia de la democràcia.

Allò que entenia que no podia fer era amagar o dissimular una postura que tinc molt clara. Puc estar equivocat, esclar. No crec en veritats absolutes. Però sí crec en l’honastedat de defensar allò que creus que és correcte, i de combatre allò que creus que no ho és.

I per a mi, que es torturi i es banalitzi el patiment d’un animal no és, en cap cas, correcte ni acceptable, i per descomptat no veig de quina manera ni per quin motiu la tortura ha de ser considerada cultura. Vet-ho aquí.

Enmig d’aquest debat ha irromput una altra persona (també via tuiter, tot i que aquesta em sembla que no ens ha votat mai, vaja, almenys no ho ha fet explícit), dient que allò que hauríem de prohibir és el nudisme. Aquí he respost que no em semblava un debat vital i que per descomptat no hi veia la dimensió seguretat per enlloc. És més, he dit que trobava (i trobo) absurd que es sancioni més durament anar despullat pel carrer que saltar-se un semàfor en vermell. Amb això no defenso que tothom hagi d’anar despullat pel carrer, compte!, que ningú tergiversi l’argument ara, sinó que el fet d’anar-hi no em sembla tan greu, ni que reclami una resposta en forma de normativa punitiva.

És evident que totes i tots tenim prioritats diferents. I aquesta és la virtut de la democràcia: que tinguis diferents opcions per escollir aquella que defensa millor (o almenys que més s’acosta) a allò que tu creus que és el més important. A partir d’aquí, els vots determinen les majories, i aquestes les prioritats.

És també evident que la gestió de govern comporta que de vegades es pugui defraudar algunes expectatives. Però una cosa és no poder fer allò que dius que vols fer, simplement per què no tens les majories necessàries, o per què la cojuntura és del tot adversa, i una altra, ben diferent, és enganyar sobre allò que vols fer, prometent una cosa o una altra en funció de com bufa el vent.

Així doncs, per molt que em sàpiga greu, lògicament, que algú em digui que deixa de votar-nos per defensar una cosa que crec del tot legítima, ho prefereixo a que m’acusin d’haver dit una cosa en campanya (per no perdre vots) i haver-ne fet una altra després.

En fi, que avui he perdut un vot, i potser més d’un i tot. Coses de la democràcia. 

De fa temps que, periòdicament, rebo per diverses bandes preguntes relatives a l’afer de la medicina natural o l’ús de plantes medicinals i a la possible revisió d’alguna directiva que les afecta.

La darrera campanya és la que han impulsat des de http://www.savenaturalhelth.eu, des d’on promouen un enviament de cartes massiu als MEPS demanant això:

Petition for the European Members of Parliament

In re: Directive on Traditional Medicinal Plants

Dear Sir or Madam,

Yours sincerely,

*************************
Com que aquest és un tema que em preocupa especialment, adjunto, primer, la resposta que dona la Comissió Europea (és aquesta), i una resposta tipus (que després personalitzo) i que envio a les persones que se’m dirigeixen inquietes per aquest afer, per si a algú més li és útil.

************************

Estimado/estimada,

En primer lugar muchas gracias por su correo. Los Verdes/ALE en el Parlamento Europeo somos de la opinión, al igual que usted, que los sistemas medicinales tradicionales no deberían ser prohibidos. No está claro sin embargo, si la implementación de la Directiva 2004/24/CE conllevará una verdadera prohibición de dichos productos. En consecuencia, los Verdes queremos claridad por parte de la Comisión Europea, y tenemos la intención de pedir explicaciones a la Comisión, en la próxima reunión sobre medio ambiente del Parlamento Europeo.

La Comisión planteó por su parte en un comunicado anterior, varios problemas relacionados con el registro de dichas hierbas medicinales tradicionales. Los Verdes por nuestra parte, queremos saber si dichos problemas han sido abordados, y en todo caso, como. Respecto a esto, presionaremos a la Comisión para ésta actúe aún más.

¿Cuáles son  los problemas?

La Directiva 2004/24/CE proporciona un procedimiento de registro simplificado para aquellos productos herbolarios tradicionales, que llevan siendo usados en Europa, al menos durante 30 años. La diferencia entre el proceso de registro convencional y el proceso de registro simplificado para dichos productos, es que en el caso del simplificado, no es necesario proporcionar información clínica para su registro.

Los productos herbolarios tradicionales deben ser registrados antes del 30 de Abril de 2011, para que puedan ser admitidos dentro del mercado Europeo. Hasta ahora, los productos herbolarios tradicionales han sido registrados como complementos alimenticios. Grupos de interés como la ANH (Alliance for Natural Health) tienen miedo de que los estados miembros dejen de aceptar ésta situación, cuando la directiva tenga plenos efectos jurídicos.

La Comisión Europea, en su Comunicado 2009/584 muestra que existen obstáculos para registrar los productos herbolarios tradicionales. Hasta el momento, la HMPC (The Committee on Herbal Medicinal Products), organismo relevante en éste tema, siempre ha requerido información sobre la genotoxicidad, mientras que según la Comisión, dicho requerimiento no es necesario. La Comisión también deja claro en su comunicado, que tiene la intención de proponer una legislación aparte para los productos con una tradición holística (Ayurvedicos, Medicina tradicional China) con el objetivo de que los problemas de registro actuales, puedan ser resueltos.

¿Que debe ocurrir según los Verdes/ALE?

Nos gustaría saber en base a la Comisión, si los productos herbolarios están en riesgo de nada entre dos aguas a partir de finales de Abril de 2011. Los Verdes queremos garantías de que no todos los sistemas medicinales tradicionales van a ser prohibidos a partir del próximo año en adelante. También queremos saber cuando va la Comisión a tratar de resolver los problemas de los productos con una tradición holística, a través de una legislación que los tenga en cuenta.

Con saludos cordiales.

Dr. Raül Romeva i Rueda
Diputado Europeo
Iniciativa per Catalunya Verds
Verdes/ALE Parlamento Europeo

Font foto: Food Freedom