Spanish officials today seized over £4 million worth of illegally caught fish landed in the Canary Islands. It is thought the move is the start of a new EU scheme to prevent to deter and eliminate illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing after new regulations were introduced last year. The fish seized, weighing over 1100 tonnes, were destined for sale in Europe.

Illegal fishing of the coast of West Africa is a serious problem for local people, who rely on fishing for employment and as a source of protein. EU officials estimate that Sierra Leone loses around $29 million per year as a result of illegal fishing. Declines in fish stocks can increase pressure on other natural resources such as bush meat. Environmental Justice Foundation, the organisation to which the illegal fishing was first reported, said that the EU needs to take more responsibility for policing it’s waters. Among the species illegally caught were octopus, squid, sole, shrimp, and grouper some of which are known to be endangered or have depleted stocks.

Three boats involved in the illegal fishing, owned by South Korea, Panama, and China, were apprehended in the port of Las Palmas. Fish were taken from waters off the coast of Sierra Leone which are reserved for use by local fishermen under international fishing agreements. Other allegations were also made against the vessels, including use of child labour, damage to the local fishermen’s equipment, and even assault. EU officials noted that illegal fishing often goes hand in hand with other criminal activities.

This move is the most drastic action the European Union has ever taken on illegal fishing and a second strike is planned for later this year. Europe is currently investigating the activities of over 70 vessels from both member states and other countries. If vessels are found to be involved in illegal fishing they can be banned from landing fish in any European port, excluding them from the world’s biggest market for fish. Europe is also demanding answers from the Panamanian authorities who provided certificates to show that the fish landed were caught within international fishing agreements which protect certain areas for use by local fishermen.

See Fish worth £4m seized in EU crackdown on illegal fishing by Robert Booth for more information.

Last week EU leaders put the subject of research and innovation at the top of the political agenda by dedicating one of their summit meetings specifically to the issue. Today the European Commissioner for Research Innovation and Science, Máire Geoghegan-Quinn, conducted a keynote speech highlighting the importance of research and innovation at the Royal Society, London.

Commissioner Geoghegan-Quinn’s speech opened with her agreement with the Royal Society; to “put science and innovation at the heart of a strategy for long-term economic growth”. She revised that we need to efficiently prioritise resources, and drew attention to the need for continued investment in research and innovation in order to create future jobs, warning that cuts to the sector could jeopardise economic growth. This opinion is supported by economic research, which indicates that reaching the EU’s target of investing 3% of GDP in the sector could create nearly four million jobs in Europe and increase annual GDP by €700 billion by 2025.

The talk was held prior to the release of the Green Paper on future EU funding for research and innovation by the European Commission this week. Commissioner Geoghegan-Quinn explained that there have been seven previous Framework Programmes. Rather than creating an eighth however, she proposed a new instrument – a Common Strategic Framework, that would bring together all of the relevant EU tools. This approach, as outlined in the Green Paper, would be supportive of EU policy objectives, and therefore operate on a scale at which major European societal challenges could be dealt with effectively. The Common Strategic Framework would aim to raise scientific excellence in Europe by increasing support and investment to create an attractive environment in which to harness scientific talent. Additional to this, the framework would be simple, with less red tape, allowing scientists to spend more time in the lab and innovators to innovate.

The second speaker of the day, Professor Adrian Smith, Director General for Knowledge and Innovation at the Department of Business Innovation and Skills, agreed with Commissioner Geoghegan-Quinn. He stated that directing funding streams toward research and innovation was vital to deliver added value, and that and collaboration between all EU members would be required for success.

In light of today’s talks on research and innovation one thing stands out; it is now time to get focused, get united, and get ahead.

Member countries of the European Union should adopt plans for their own ‘Green Investment Bank (GIB)’ in order to benefit from 30% emissions reductions, according to the independent think-tank E3G. Recommendations from the report – “Building a sustainable and low carbon European recovery” – suggest creation of institutions similar to the GIB and the German national bank KfW, to provide much needed low carbon investment. These measures would function alongside a strong policy portfolio to include the development of a European smart energy grid. Improvements in European domestic energy efficiency, innovation and low carbon infrastructure – which would be funded by the GIB (or an equivalent body) -are essential to ensuring energy security, claims E3G.

E3G state that: “the most economically sensible shift to 30 per cent would prioritise investment in domestic European energy efficiency, and in the infrastructure and innovation needed to sustain reductions beyond 2020 and maintain European companies’ lead in the low carbon race,”, rather than proposals to meet the 30% targets via cheap emissions reductions credits. However, the changes have been opposed by those that claim the costs of meeting such ambitious targets are beyond the capability of many firms current economic recession. They suggest that a lower target of 20% is more realistic and economically beneficial given the current financial crisis, a point strongly denied in the report.

Whilst the final decisions on EU emisisons reductions will not be made until early 2011, it is likely that the package of measures will be influenced by outcomes at the next UN climate change summit (COP16), in which European nations will be voting as a ‘bloc’.

Press Notice from the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee:

The Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee will undertake an inquiry into the European Commission’s proposals for reform of the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) after 2013. The inquiry will consider the impact of the proposals on agriculture in the UK.
At a cost of about €57 bn in 2010, the CAP is the EU’s single largest item of expenditure. It affects almost 50% of the EU’s land area and nearly 14 million agricultural holdings. The CAP is due to be reformed by December 2013. The European Commission will outline their options for a new CAP framework in November, prior to issuing draft legislative proposals in summer 2011.
The Committee is seeking evidence from interested parties on the Commission’s proposals, including:
• How will the Commission’s proposals affect the ability of UK agriculture to be competitive in a global market?
• Do the proposals ensure fair competition for British agricultural products within the European Union?
• Will the proposals achieve the correct balance between productivity and sustainability?
• Do the proposals place the UK in a good position to help meet future food supply challenges?
• Will the proposals redress the imbalance in support to different sectors created by the historic basis of payments?
• What aspects of the proposals should be made a common policy, and which are best left to Member States?
• Can the proposals be implemented simply and cost-effectively, within a short time-scale?

The Committee may revise this information or release additional Terms of Reference following the publication of the Commission’s proposals.
The Committee invites all interested parties to address these and related matters in writing by Friday 3 December 2010. More information about the required format of submissions is given on the Committee’s website.

A group of researchers have called for urgent action to be taken to tackle invasive alien species in Europe, as reported on the BBC website (Pamela Rutherford) and this morning’s Today Programme. The researchers, meeting for a conference in Copenhagen, have urged the EU to adopt a Europe-wide policy by next year at the latest, aimed at tackling the economic and ecological damage wreaked on Europe’s indiginous wildlife by non-native invasive species.

Giving an interview to the BBC, the Chair of the Invasive Species Specialist Group said that the estimate of 12 billion EUR of damage caused by invasive alien species was likely to be a significant underestimate of the true cost because the economic value of the biodiversity lost through invasive species invasions was not included in this figure.

A 2008 inventory found 10,000 invasive non-native species in Europe, and colonisations have increased rapidly over the last 30 years.

At last week’s BES Annual Meeting in Leeds, delegates heard a presentation from CABI in which the preliminary results of the trial to combat Japanese Knotweed via biological control were discussed. The cost to combat the spread of Japanese Knotweed in the UK was estimated to be £1.56 billion presently. CABI has released a psyllid, Aphalara itadori, a natural enemy of the weed, at three paired sites in Southern England and is currently monitoring these sites intensively. Although few psyllids have been observed since release, researchers speculate that this is due to a dilution effect, with few psyllids released into the very large patches of Knotweed present. As a result CABI will carry out further releases of Aphalara, to create a higher psyllid density. Tests have shown that the psyllid is host specific so the research team is confident that further releases will have an effect.

The European Ecological Federation has today launched the website for its 12th Congress, taking place in Avila, Spain, on 25 – 29 September 2011. The meeting is being organised jointly by the Spanish Association of Terrestrial Ecology (AEET) and Portuguese Ecological Society (SPECO), on behalf of the EEF.

The EEF plan to organise a workshop as part of this meeting, engaging policy-makers from the European Commission. Further details will appear on the EEF website when available.

The European Ecological Federation encourages all ecological societies and colleagues to develop topics for symposia and/or workshops for the 12th EEF Congress: Deadline 12th November.

Four years ago the European Commission’s annual ‘Green Week’ conference examined the progress towards the target of halting the loss of biodiversity by 2010, carrying a positive “Biodiversity is Life!” strapline. Speaking for the UK’s Labour Government, the then Minister in charge of biodiversity, Barry Gardiner MP questioned the general public’s awareness of biodiversity loss, not to mention the apparent lack of understanding of what the term actually meant. Four years on, in the context of the International Year of Biodiversity, this year’s ‘Green Week’ fittingly brings biodiversity back into the spotlight. The conference provides a forum for a week of investigation into how to take the EU’s biodiversity policy forward post-2010.

Three days of discussion will address the pressing issues affecting Europe’s nature – what new policy responses are needed? How can the EU best value the remaining resource and measure the ecosystem services the continent’s nature provides? How can it properly maintain and expand its now long-established Natura 2000 network? 3,800 delegates from the public, charity, scientific, academic and business communities are joining representatives from the EU institutions to answer these questions.

Amongst the opening presentations was a speech by the European Environment Agency’s Executive Director Dr Jacqueline McGlade, who unveiled a new Biodiversity Information System for Europe (BISE), which centralises information about European biodiversity in a new web portal. Combined with the new Biodiversity Baseline, which provides a shapshot of the current state of biodiversity, the EEA and European Commission hope this partnership project will make the monitoring of progress towards renewed efforts to halt biodiversity loss a lot easier.

To catch up on the week’s activities, the Green Week 2010 website has details of the thirty sessions taking place, with video links to many of the proceedings.

The Policy Lunchbox network was today joined by Sirini Withana, Policy Analyst at the Institute of European Environmental Policy. Sirini led a fascinating discussion to explain the structures and processes of policy-making in the European Union. The EU has grown from a loose organisation of six Member States in the 1950’s, established to deal with economic issues, to a coalition of 27 Member States which now generates over 80% of the UK’s environmental policies.

Sirini began by outlining the three main structures of the European Union: the European Commission; the European Parliament and the Council of the European Union.

The European Commission
The European Commission is essentially the ‘civil service’ of the EU, politically independent and in charge of initiating European community policy. The Commission comprises the ‘College of Commissioners’ and ‘Commission’s Services’. Within the College each Member State is represented by one Commissioner, appointed for a five-year term. The UK Commissioner is Lady Catherine Ashton, also HIgh Representative of Foreign Affairs. The Commission’s Services is the permanent apolitical administration for the the Commission, charged with preparing policy proposals. The Commission’s Services is organised into Directorates, such as DG Environment and DG Research. Within DG Research, the Joint Research Centre provides scientific and technical advice to the Directorates.

The European Parliament
The European Parliament meanwhile is composed of 736 Members of the European Parliament (MEPs), directly elected by the electorate in Member States. Of these, 72 MEPs are from the UK. Each MEP has a five-year term of office. MEPs organise themselves into political groups within the Parliament, of which there are currently seven, with the European People’s Party (EPP), a centre-right group, currently the largest and most powerful.

The European Parliament shares the power to make laws and control over the EU budget with the Council of the European Union.

Legislation proceeds through the work of specialist Parliamentary Committees, of which there are 20. Once a proposal has been put forward by the Commission, a lead Committee is identified to take this forward, with an MEP from this Committee appointed to act as a ‘rapporteur’, leading the work on this area of legislation by the Committee. Once the Committee has considered the proposal and collated information a report will be presented and voted on at a plenary session of all MEPs.

The Council of the European Union
As already mentioned above, the Council of the European Union passes legislation and has control of the EU budget, jointly with the European Parliament. The Council meets in nine different ‘formations’, one of which is the ‘European Council’, which represents Member States’ interests and comprises the Heads of State of each EU member country. The current (first) President of the European Council is Herman Van Rompuy. The Presidency (Chair) of the other eight ‘formations’ of the Council of the European Union rotates between Member States, once every six months.

Decision-Making: European Parliament and Council of the European Union
Decision-making usually occurs via a process of ‘Ordinary Legislative Procedure’. The European Commission tables a proposal which is then allocated to one of the nine ‘formations’ of the Council of the European Union. The Parliament and Council then take it in turns to consider the proposal and issue a formal opinion upon it. If both bodies disagree at this stage, a ’second reading’ of the proposal takes place. If there is still no agreement after this stage a ‘Concilliation Committee’ is formed. If after the process of Concilliation the two parties still do not agree the proposal is dropped.

The UK feeds into this process through the UK Permanent Representation to the EU (UKRep), which receives its negotiating mandate from the UK Government.

Following this very useful overview, Sirini offered a few tips for how best to influence policy-making in the EU:

- Keep track of upcoming developments: review the annual strategy and work programme for the EU, one launched in March and the other in the autumn each year;
- Influence the development of proposals: identify the desk officer working on a particular proposal and engage with them; respond to open consultations;
- Exercise influence during the legislative process: engage with the rapporteur (MEP) leading the development of legislation for a particular Parliamentary Committee and engage too with other MEPs on that Committee. Many will not be specialists in the area they are reviewing and will welcome input;
- Influence the UK Government, thereby influencing the negotiating position put forward by UKRep.

Overall, Sirini encouraged us to ’stay ahead of the game’, influencing policy at the earliest opportunity. Identifying and building relationships with key people in Brussels, including through receptions and events, is important, as is providing clear, concise and evidence-based input. Being clear about the steps in the EU decision-making process will help organisations to target their input in the most effective way.

Policy Lunchbox is a network for policy professionals maintained by the Biochemical Society and British Ecological Society. For details of forthcoming events please see the Policy Lunchbox webpage on the Biochemical Society website.

The EU Environment Council reached an agreement on aims and ambitions for managing biodiversity loss across Europe on 15 March this year when it adopted the following conclusions:

“[The Council] AGREES on a long-term vision that by 2050 European Union biodiversity and the ecosystem services it provides – its natural capital – are protected, valued and appropriately restored for biodiversity’s intrinsic value and for their essential contribution to human wellbeing and economic prosperity, and so that catastrophic changes caused by the loss of biodiversity are avoided;”

“For this vision to be achieved [the Council] AGREES further on a headline target of halting the loss of biodiversity and the degradation of ecosystem services in the EU by 2020, and restoring them in so far as feasible, while stepping up the EU contribution to averting global biodiversity loss;”

These resolutions appeared on page three (paragraphs one and two) of the following document; “Council conclusions on biodiversity post-2010 – EU and global vision and targets and international access and burden sharing regime“.

These conclusions were later supported by the EU Council of Ministers, in the published conclusions of a meeting held on 25/26 March:

“There is an urgent need to reverse continuing trends of biodiversity loss and ecosystem degradation. The European Council is committed to the long term biodiversity 2050 vision and the 2020 target set out in the Council’s conclusions of 15 March 2010.” (Page nine, paragraph 14).

The declaration of the EU target will no doubt inform discussions upon a formal successor to the target to slow biodiversity loss (to halt this decline in Europe), at the Convention on Biological Diversity meeting this October in Nagoya, Japan.

An editorial in this week’s Nature argues that the post of Chief Science Adviser to the Europe, created at a meeting of European Commissioners on 17 February, must have real teeth and the support needed to deliver effectively.

In an article on p326 (’Setting the bar’), Nature reveals that there has been pressure within the Commission to bury the post in beaurocracy, which would have resulted in a lack of power, authority and independence for the occupant of the role. The Commission has now rejected this, making clear that the Chief Scientific Advisor will report directly to the President of the European Commission, Jose Manuel Barroso, and be supported by the Bureau of European Policy Advisors, a government think-tank close to the President.

The role of the Chief Scientific Adviser is likely to be to deliver science advice across the board, not just on matters related to the funding of scientific research in Europe, a welcome development given Barrosso’s comments last year when he pledged to fill the gap relating to the provision of high-quality, independent scientific advice at EU level. The editorial argues that the post-holder must be adequately supported, highlighting the example of the Office of Science and Technology in the U.S., headed by President Obama’s CSA, John Holdren. The OST has a team of 70 dedicated experts and similar should be created for the European CSA.

Highlighting the UK Government’s current efforts to develop principles on the use of independent scientific advice by ministers and civil-servants, the piece argues that similar priniples should be developed in Europe. The Commission should draw up guidelines to govern the relationship between Commissioners and the CSA, to ensure that independent science advice is intelligently procured and utilised.

See the BES and Biochemical Society’s joint response to the UK Government consultation on Guidelines for the Use of Scientific Analysis in Policy-Making.