Another busy week in Brussels

Our survival depends on our adaptability. The country stands at the dawn of a sudden technological leap into environmental acceptability as we stand at Europe's doorway. Certain targets must be met or there will be fines to pay. There is a fair amount of jostling at the door with companies competing to win tenders for projects, egged on by EU funding, which should bring our quality of life up to scratch.

In the warmer months the population swells and even more sewage pours into the sea just when we most want it to be clean. The European Parliament and Council have recently been advised by the Commission that a new bathing water policy could include the use of health standards as a basis for setting water quality standards. The number of viral and bacterial infections recorded in children might be used to indicate how clean the water really is.

Planning for people

Environmental disasters at Verdala, Kalkara and Balluta could surely have been averted had the public been given more say.

Member states in the European Union now have two years to implement a new directive which will give the public a greater role in planning permission decisions. The new directive will also ensure that national defence projects are no longer automatically excluded from the EU environmental impact assessment directive. This new directive on public participation in environmental planning aligns the EU's environmental legislation with the UN Aarhus Convention on the public's right to know.

It amends the directives on environmental impact assessment (EIA) and integrated pollution prevention and control (IPPC) to give the public a greater role. It also opens up speci-fic EU directives, including those on batteries and accumulators, hazardous waste and packaging to public consultation.

The European Commission last week decided to take the UK government to court over its failure to require an Environmental Impact Assessment for a planned multiplex cinema in Crystal Palace. The decision follows a complaint from the local Crystal Palace Campaign lodged with the Commission and supported by London's Green MEP Jean Lambert.

"The effects of this decision could be far-reaching. If the court decides against the government it will be forced to make wholesale changes to planning law, affecting developments across the country. Essentially planning decisions will have to ask whether there is a need for developments on this scale in the first place and this decision makes clear that local people will have to be involved in the decision-making process."

Ms Lambert was in Malta earlier this month and gave a press conference together with Alternattiva Demokratika as part of the Maltese Green Party's pro-EU membership campaign.

Amending food additives directive

A year ago the European Parliament and Council passed a food law establishing the European Food Safety Authority. No sooner were the new food law principles in force than they were brought into play for the first time. In early March 2002 an emergency measure was applied suspending the sale of jelly mini-cups containing the food additive Konjac E 425. Konjac is a gelling agent and thickener used in food products.

The action was taken by the Commission in response to reports that several children in the US and Canada had choked on the contents of jelly mini-cups. Until the food safety law jelly mini-cups were marketed in the EU by different manufacturers as a single portion pre-packaged confectionery mainly intended for children. The Commission, supported by the member states, considered that the warnings on the packaging of these products was insufficient protection for children.

Legislation is now being drafted after a call for the review of safety levels for food additives used in confectionery, soft drinks and snacks consumed in large quantities by children and adolescents. The proposal for a permanent ban on the use of the food additive E 425 in jelly confectionery came in response to reports that jelly containing the additive posed a risk of death by choking. While limit values are set for adults children are the biggest consumers of the food and drinks concerned.

A review is being proposed within the next three years of the safety levels for all the food additives listed in Directive 95/2/EC with amendments where necessary on the basis of their effects on children's health. An amendment bringing forward the implementation of the ban in the member states to six months after the legislation is published is also being proposed.

Since last February the general principles of food law have applied to every stage of production, processing and distribution of food and also to the production and distribution of animal feed. They placed an obligation on the food and feed operator to ensure compliance and on member states to apply control systems to ensure that compliance. These principles apply equally to imports and exports.

Food safety matters are covered in the same way at all stages of the food supply chain. The regulation makes it clear that making food and animal feed safe is the responsibility of the business operator - a responsibility that is to be backed up by controls applied by the authorities in the member states. It has become obligatory in Europe for food businesses to withdraw unsafe foods from the market, and at the same time to provide accurate information to the consumers.

Fischler and chips

Green parties in Europe are asking the Swedish government to pursue a moratorium on cod fishing. Greens in the European Parliament have condemned the European Commission for refusing to allow Sweden to take action to conserve the severely depleted cod stocks.

"The status of several cod stocks, including those in the Baltic and North Seas, is so low that the Swedish government wants to impose a unilateral moratorium on cod fishing by Swedish vessels," said Inger Schörling, Swedish Green MEP.

The European Commission has decided that Sweden does not have the right to do this. The Greens reminded Commissioner Franz Fischler who is responsible for Agriculture, Rural Development and Fisheries that for the past two years the Commission has repeatedly said that the Common Fisheries Policy must be reformed so as to ensure the conservation of fish stocks.

During the negotiations for accession to the EU, Sweden was given an "environmental guarantee", a commitment that in order to protect the environment Sweden would be able to impose stricter measures than the minimum standards required under EU legislation. Forcing Sweden to overfish cod flies in the face of that commitment.

On a visit to Sweden last October, Commissioner Fischler said that he was supportive of the proposed Swedish moratorium. Now the Commission says that the moratorium is not consistent with the objectives of the Common Fisheries Policy. The Greens pointed out that the policy includes the application of the precautionary approach and are pressing Commissioner Fischler to explain why he has changed his mind.

Suspension of funds

The European Commission aims to protect Europe's most important wildlife areas. Natura 2000 is said to be the most important initiative ever undertaken in the EU to conserve areas of high importance for threatened species and habitats. "By protecting these precious components of biodiversity Natura 2000 aims to meet the European Council's goal of halting biodiversity decline within the EU by 2010. It represents a major contribution to global nature conservation and a model for international co-operation on sustainable development."

The early implementation of Natura 2000 in candidate countries is important to ensure that future developments in these countries take full account of their rich natural heritage. No transition periods have been agreed with candidate countries for the Natura 2000 network. All 13 countries will be required to designate Special Protection Areas under the Birds Directive and propose Sites of Community Interest under the Habitats Directive at the time of Accession.

The centrepiece of EU nature and biodiversity policy, Natura 2000 is an EU-wide network of nature protection areas established under the 1992 Habitats Directive. The aim of the network is to assure the long-term survival of Europe's most valuable and threatened species and habitats.

It is not a system of strict nature reserves where all human activities are excluded. Although the network will certainly include nature reserves, most of the land is likely to continue to be privately owned and the emphasis will be on ensuring that future management is sustainable, ecologically, economically and socially.

The selection of Natura 2000 sites is based exclusively on scientific criteria, such as the size and density of populations of target species and the ecological quality and area of target habitat types present in the site. The directive does not lay down rules regarding the consultation process to be followed in selecting the sites. This is for the member states to determine.

The nature directives do not say how much land and water need to be included in Natura 2000. This will depend on the biological richness of the different regions. If, for example, a member state is particularly rich in specific species and habitats, it is expected to designate sites in proportion to this wealth in bio-diversity.

While the establishment of Natura 2000 is not yet complete, considerable progress has been achieved and an area larger in size than Germany, equivalent to more that 15 per cent of the EU's territory, has now been proposed for conservation under the network.

The Commission works closely with member states and key stakeholder groups on implementation issues. This is ensured through the Habitats and Ornis Committees, which have a statutory role in implementation of the nature directives, and a more recently established biannual meeting with Nature directors. Malta's Ornis Committee is being set up. The Commission is also issuing guidance documents on a range of topics to promote better implementation.

Current EU policy measures, in particular those under Rural Development Policy such as the agri-environment regime, as well as the dedicated Life Nature fund, are already providing support to the establishment of Natura 2000. Discussions are ongoing concerning future financing. An independent report on this just been finalised.

Member states should ensure full compliance with the legal requirements of Natura 2000 regardless of whether or not they are in receipt of structural funds. However, it is particularly important to ensure compliance in situations that involve Community-funded programmes. In light of this concern the Commission previously indicated to member states that a failure to present lists of Natura 2000 sites could result in the suspension of payments under certain structural fund programmes.

The threat of suspension of payments from such programmes is a precautionary measure to ensure that Community-funded programmes would not contribute to irreparable damage to sites before they have been proposed officially for the protection under the Natura 2000 regime.