Currently t he Council Directive 2001/112/EC relating to fruit juices and similar products intended for human consumption was legislated:

in order to simplify vertical directives relating to foodstuffs and to take into account only the essential requirements to be met by the products that they cover for example composition, reserved descriptions, manufacturing specifications, and labelling in order to facilitate the free movement of the said products within the internal common market of the EU

to make the rules regarding manufacturing and marketing conditions for fruit juices and nectars more accessible, and to legislate in accordance in line with other foodstuffs in particular on labelling, colouring matter, sweeteners and other authorised additives.

to clearly indicate when a product is a mixture of fruit juice, and fruit juice from concentrate, and for concentrated fruit juice, dehydrated / powdered fruit juice and for fruit nectar when it is obtained entirely or partly from a concentrated product, and the list of ingredients in the labelling bears the names of both the fruit juices and the fruit juices from concentrate used.

to allow the addition of vitamins to the said products which is permitted in some Member States, though not throughout the whole European Community. Hence Member States are free to authorise or prohibit the addition of vitamins and also minerals as part of the manufacturing process.

Salient Points of the Proposed Legislation

Article 1: Directive 2001/112/EC is hereby amended as follows:

(1) In Article 3, paragraph 6, the words "made with concentrate(s)" and "partially made with concentrate(s)" shall be replaced by the words "from concentrate(s)" and "partially from concentrate(s)".

(2) In Annex I, Section I, paragraph 1, point b), the second indent is replaced by the following: "The product thus obtained must display organoleptic and analytical characteristics at least equivalent to those of an average type of juice obtained from fruits of the same kind within the meaning of (a). The minimum Brix levels for fruit juices from concentrate are indicated in Annex V."

(3) An Annex V, as set out in the Annex to this Directive, is added.

Article 2

The Member States shall, as from 01/06/2009, authorise the sale of products which comply with this Directive.

The Member States shall, as from 01/06/2009, prohibit the sale of products which fail to comply with this Directive.

Article 3: The Member States shall, by 01/06/2009 at the latest, adopt and publish the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with this Directive. They shall immediately communicate the text of those provisions to the Commission.

When the Member States adopt those measures, they shall contain a reference to this Directive or shall be accompanied by such reference on the occasion of their official publication.

The methods of making such reference shall be laid down by the Member States.

Please forward feedback by Thursday, the 12 March 2009 to Abigail Mamo @ GRTU

GRTU has received this important information letter from the Malta Standards Authority and we are passing it to you as members.

Council Directive 88/378/EEC as amended by Council Directive 93/68/EEC on the approximation of the laws of the Member States concerning the safety of toys, cover the placing on the European market of toys. These directives have been transposed into Maltese law through Legal Notice 337 of 2002, Safety of Toys Regulation. 

The above Directive requires that all products falling under this category carry the CE marking demonstrating compliance to the applicable directives. The CE mark is required to be affixed by the manufacturer of the toy after appropriate tests are carried out and a declaration of conformity is issued.

Thus, all toys imported into, or manufactured in the European Union, including Malta, is required to have the CE marking affixed to it as well as other warnings and indications of precautions as necessary.

It should be stressed that manufacturers and distributors retain the responsibility for certifying the conformity of their products to the relevant essential requirements of the Directives mentioned above.

It is essential therefore, that before issuing an EC declaration of conformity, the manufacturer or his authorized representative established in the Community provides a technical construction file. It is not, however, essential that all documentation be permanently available in a material manner, but it must be made available on demand.

This letter is to be considered as a measure that the Head of Market Surveillance Directorate of the Malta Standards Authority thought necessary to adopt in order to ‘suppress or prevent practices which are detrimental to product safety' as per the Fourth Schedule of the Establishment of Directorates of Malta Standards Authority Order, 2008 (L.N.39/2008) and more specifically Part III Article 15(d) of the Product Safety Act (Chapter 427 of the Laws of Malta).

Should you have any queries, or require further information on the matter, please contact the undersigned on telephone number 21242420 or e-mail to or .

Entrepreneurs will be paid up to €1,100 per month to move to other EU countries to learn from experienced business owners as part of a pilot project designed to encourage young business owners to make more of the internal market.

The scheme is part of the Small Business Act which was unveiled in July 2008 and will help 870 entrepreneurs to spend between one and six months in another EU member state in 2010. People starting their own businesses will be paired with established SMEs with the help of local chambers of commerce and other intermediary organisations.

Funding for expenses varies according to the cost of living in member states and ranges from €560 in Latvia to €1,100 in Denmark, but entrepreneurs keen to avail of the scheme will be expected to raise additional funds and demonstrate that they have a viable business plan.

New entrepreneurs will gain competences and perspectives that will prove invaluable during the business start-up phase, while also enhancing potential crossborder activity and thus the probability of success.

Businesses across Europe continue to focus on their national market rather than exploiting commercial opportunities elsewhere in the EU, with just 8% of SMEs exporting their goods and services within the EU. Maive Rute, Director for Promotion of SMEs' competitiveness, European Commission, dismissed concerns that the project would struggle to attract enough established businesspeople to host young entrepreneurs, saying there are 23 million SMEs in Europe and just 870 are needed to make the project work. An additional €5 million will be made available if the pilot project is deemed a success, she added.

Anyone interested contact Abigail Mamo @ GRTU

The GRTU Council has today agreed to not only endorse but also support the Director General Vince Farrugia's candidature for the upcoming June 6th European Parliament Elections.

This support is being given in recognition to the enormous contribution Vince Farrugia has given and is still giving on behalf of Maltese Small and Medium Enterprises on a local and European level. This also due to the strong trust in his capacity of being an MEP at the highest level.

The GRTU Council believes that Vince Farrugia has the capability as a Member of the European Parliament to represent all the Maltese population, with determination, experience and ability. The Council believes that Director General Vince Farrugia will be a Member of the European Parliament who is able to represent with absolute ability the owners of small and medium enterprises and the self-employed. It is a great honor to both GRTU, its members, and the sections represented within GRTU to have a person identified with the GRTU and enterprise to be a Member of the European Parliament.

"The GRTU Executive Council wishes Vince Farrugia every success in the coming elections on 6th June 2009". This is a public statement issued by the GRTU President Paul Abela following the GRTU National Council's meeting earlier today, were it approved this resolution.

GRTU's National Executive Council is composed of 19 members . The resolution passed with two votes against and one abstention due to conflict of interest.

Following meetings for different groups of tenants and owners to discuss the Rent Reform Bill and also a number of meetings on a personal basis where the GRTU lawyer viewed the different contractual obligations, GRTU was now in a position to provide Hon John Dalli and Hon Charles Muscat with GRTU's final Position Paper on the Rent Reform Bill.

GRTU feels we presented a comprehensive paper which we asked should be taken carefully into consideration and discussed at Committee Stage. GRTU also made itself fully available for follow-up meetings to explain further our views.

GRTU's paper argued as follows:

For an object or reason as to why the need for this reform was felt GRTU feels that for the reform to create a social justice it does not have to create an injustice with the tenants of leased properties, this by disregarding all they have worked for and all the money they paid to the owners of leased properties over the years.

An enterprise is very important for both the Maltese and European economy – "the backbone of our economy"- and Government must promote and defend enterprise in line with the Small Business Act.

Though many business owners represented by GRTU are also property owners, GRTU explained that we consider that property ownership of enterprise owners as one important store of wealth, that accumulates from the earnings of an economic activity in the form of enterprise, whatever the private economic activity.

The Bill outlines what will constitute a binding Contract and it also creates a situation where the legislators` intervention is interfering and intervening in between the contractual obligations reached between the two parties in pre-June 1995 contractual agreements were no end date is stipulated.

The Bill has placed the legislator in a position to break what was up till today considered an unbreakable contract with its intervention between two contracting parties. It is interfering with individual enterprise business plans based on existing contractual obligations reached within the framework of existing laws.

The Bill must not interfere with any contractual obligation reached between two parties or where the possibility for a contractual agreement existed even if none of the parties preferred to make use of it and where no law prohibited action that contracting parties could freely adopt.

Where pre-June 1995 contracts are clear and stipulate all the essential elements to make a contract binding, independently of whether a contract is definite or not, they must be still regarded as valid contracts, as on the day they were signed, and they cannot be broken.

The contracts were signed by both parties knowingly, the majority in the presence of fully qualified notaries in the capacity of legal persons, some being themselves legislators at the time. In the same way a purchase contract is not broken when the purchased item increases in value, in the same way a lease contact is not broken because the value of the property increases.

Many titles of lease have been assigned throughout the years without novation and thus many such assignments reflected the practically life-time guarantee a lessee had by virtue of the pre-1995 social laws. Such contracts and/or assignments were made at a hefty expense by way of exorbitant "key-money". The Bill discards such expenses incurred by lessees outright.

The Bill stipulated that for pre-1995 commercial contract, unless a different agreement is reached after 1^st January 2009, rent will increase by a fixed rate of 15%. The 15% shall increase each year up till 31^st December 2012.

It feels it is not acceptable that a blanket approach is adopted for the increase in rent. Rent cannot increase in the same manner for all tenants since there are cases were rent is already high and others were rent even increases periodically.

GRTU questioned on what bases was the 15% increase was calculated and how this related in real terms to inflation. GRTU asked for a rational complete with a study of what this will mean in terms of impact on the relevant stakeholders. Cases were reported were a significant some of money was paid to the landlord for him to agree not to increase the rent. Other cases also reported where sole traders admit they will have to close should this 15% increase each year occur, is Government aware of this?

The Bill further stipulates that on 1^st Jan 2013 rent must be agreed upon between the parties. If no agreement is reached any party may apply to the Rent Board to fix the fair rent, established according to the Property Market Value Index.

GRTU feels 2013 is too early to expect businesses to have adjusted to what might be a drastic change in the rent they pay. A longer transition period is required both for the rent to start to increase and for the tenant to be thrown to the mercy of the landlord. This in line with the drastic effects such a short transition period might have- closure of business and loss of jobs.

Many members have already voiced their opinion that a 15% increase is exorbitant and that they will be forced to close shop as a result.

Should the Rent Board be required to fix the fair rent and evaluate property values, due consideration should be given to the economic value added the property has achieved through the efforts of the tenant's entrepreneurship through the same property. 

Also taken into consideration should be the original cost of construction or purchase value of the building and the returns enjoyed by the property owner as rents and other remuneration and premiums paid over the years by the tenant for privileges granted under the same rent/lease arrangement. The current market values of rented properties should be considered as secondary to the returns enjoyed on the original investment

GRTU requested a formula be put in place for the Rent Board to be able to make such calculation.

The Rent Reform Bill makes certain specifications for contract renewals and inheritance of lease. It states that the tenant of a commercial property shall be that occupying the property on the 1^st of June 2008 under a valid title of lease as well as the husband or wife of such tenant, provided these are living together not legally separated, and also in the event of death the heirs who are his natural or legal children.

GRTU while being in agreement with this principle feels that unlike other countries Malta has little if any supportive schemes for the succession of family owned private businesses by members of the same family or by others.

The principle of succession of businesses in rented properties should be recognised and members of the family of the tenants or others nominated by the tenants as successors should be given the necessary safeguards so that the enterprise will continue to survive.

A clause which GRTU feels is grossly unjust is where it stipulates a commercial contract made before 1^st June 1995 shall in any case terminate within twenty years from 1^st June 2008 unless another contract or lease has been made.

GRTU feels that in the same way that employees, and wage earners are provided with legal protection against unfair dismissal, self employed business owners whose livelihood, that of their families and of their employees depend on the enterprise operating from rented properties should continue to enjoy the safeguards that exist under current legislation ensuring that their livelihood will not depend on the whims of the property owner renting the enterprise property.

In addition Government has recently given the population in general the right to work even after reaching the personable age. With a practical confiscation of business premises within twenty years time the law will directly discriminate against the business sector. 

Business owners throughout these years thought they had a legal and binding agreement but it seems suddenly this is being nullified because it does not have the closure or renewal clause. It is unacceptable both in the case of definite and indefinite contacts that a contract is terminated within twenty years, due primarily to the fact that this impinges on the rights arising from Contract Law under Title IV of Chapter 16 applicable to synallagmatic contracts as well as the fundamental rights and freedoms of the individual in relation to property enshrined in our constitution under articles 32(a) and 39 of seq.

Only the original expiry, if any, as defined in the original contract will be accepted. Should the contact be, as unjustly imposed by this act, terminated against the principles agreed upon in the contract a fair agreement must be reached between the parties.

If no agreement is reached and the contact is put to an end the tenant must be given compensation by the landlord for any works (repairs, maintenance and embellishment) carried out by the tenant, and goodwill (the added value given to the property by the operation of that enterprise)

A prime clause which GRTU does not agree with is where the Bill states that a contract made between the parties prior to the 1^st June 1995 that allows for automatic renewals shall be considered as a contract for an unspecified period and shall terminate within twenty years from 1^st June 2008.

This to GRTU is not acceptable where contracts are clear and stipulate the necessities, independently of whether a contract is definite or not, they must be still regarded as contracts and they can not be broken.

Another instance in the Bill where GRTU would appreciate more flexibility is in the application for change of use. The Bill states that dissolution of the contract may be demanded where the tenant uses the premises for other purposes than that agreed upon or in a manner which may prejudice the landlord.

GRTU however feels that the rapid changes taking place in the Maltese economy are necessitating the change of genre of business for a substantial number of old established enterprises. This transformation is today being precluded or restricted as enterprises operating from rental properties fear the loss of the enterprise safeguards that they enjoy under current laws should they seek to move on from one genre to the other to better meet current and future enterprise needs.

The Bill should extend security of tenure for tenants who progress from one genre of business to new genre of business utilising the same rental property. This safeguard should by subject to a framework of acceptable and prescribed forms of compensation to property owners.

The tenant should be given the opportunity of change of use from that stipulated from the contact if this does not jeopardise the landlord. Should the Rent Board find, after hearing both parties, that there is no reason to stop the tenant from applying for change of use this will be granted to the tenant.

GRTU also added an important aspect to include: giving tenants the opportunity to buy the rented property. The Reform should include incentives and options that give the possibility of a safe landing to the enterprises that will be very negatively hit by the Reform. GRTU proposes that the reform package should include precise forms that enable entrepreneurs in rented commercial properties to buy the property on favourable terms not unlike schemes that have been provided for tenants in Government owned residential properties.

Enterprises operating from rented commercial premises should be given the opportunity to buy and acquire the property at commercial value with discounts set according to the number of years the business has been occupying the premises. The business would also be allowed recognition for the investments done in the property. The credit for the number of years the property has been occupied together with the credits for the value of the investments done in the property should together obtain a maximum discount on the market value of the property of up to 50%. Suitable tax credits should be made available so that tenants would be encouraged to take this option. Moreover this option should apply irrespectively of whether the rented property is privately owned or Government owned.

The safeguards and options available for the purchase and acquisition of the property by enterprise tenants should apply irrespectively of whether the property is held by title of lease or of a lease subject to ground rent (cens).

GRTU is presently awaiting constructive feedback on our position.

Vince Farrugia

We had better face this issue. No one in his right senses wants to deny help to those less fortunate than we are, but no one wants to see our little Islands impossibly burdened  with a  growing immigrant population. It isn't that we are all racists or bigots. It's just that we all know in our heart of hearts  that a densly populated country like ours simply cannot just have the same immigration policy as other much larger countries. Our limit is there, whatever anyone says.   And we're not referring only to Africans, though these seem to be the major concern of most Maltese. Malta has tens of thousands of immigrants who have moved in our country in one way or another. They come from all over the world, East Europeans, Chinese, Philippines, Bangladeshis, Indians, Arabs, Russians, Pakistanis and yes, many, many Africans.

 

They are simply everywhere. Some are not so visible but, alas, many others are. Some work diligently and are no nuisance to anybody, others are packed 10, to 20 in one small apartment with no sense of hygiene, health and safety standards or any respect for their  neighbours or the surrounding environment. Some are becoming a real threat. They create difficult situations in streets, in bars, in petrol stations, in shops. They have been led to think we have some obligation towards them. They order goods from shops, from petrol stations, from bars, and if the bill reaches to levels beyond what they have in their pocket, they simply say ‘no money' and expect to walk out…..with the goods. Before the shop owner opens his mouth out comes the mobile phone, a number is dialled and suddenly the shop owner has a mob in his place. These things have happened, and its thanks to the tact of our police force that potentially ugly situations have been defused in time.

 

This is Malta Right Now in 2009. And one can't really challenge or protest the status quo, not even in a rational way, because he is quickly labelled as a bigot or a racist quicker than you can say the word. Some people have left no room for discussing the issue, and its these extremist for and against views that are most harmful . That's why people are worried. You walk certain streets in certain localities and believe you're in Africa or Asia. Most of us, luckily, do not see this because we do not live in the effected areas. But the problem is there and it's growing day by the day with every boatload that comes in. So what do we do? Shall we turn it into another political Punch and Judy show with one politician hitting the other while we all stare in disbelief. People want decisive action. They don't want T.V theatrics. Are the Nationalist to blame? Is Labour right in blaming the Government? What are we going to do? Do we have a solution? People simply don't care whether it's Lawrence Gonzi or Joseph Muscat has the right solution. They want a solution….. period, but one that is broadly acceptable to all. Above all, the people want the rule of law to prevail, for anyone, be it Maltese, Somali, British, or whoever.  

 

I don't believe government is to blame. I talk to Minister Carmelo Mifsud Bonnici, to Minister Dalli and to the Prime Minister and to Army senior personnel and know they are doing their best to get the European Union to recognize the terrible mess we're being allowed to sink in. Is their best good enough? Maybe it's not good enough. We would have a solution by now if it were. I'm not sure from meetings I've been through that anyone has a firm solution, and to be honest, I don't think the problem will solve itself if some of the solutions being touted are implemented Our geographical position has seen to that.

 

I'm not sure we even have the right dimension of the problem. My reckoning ,and I am a person who is in daily contact with many localities and with many people, is that the size of the problem is much bigger than the authorities would have us  to believe. It is a visible problem. So am I and many others  possibly wrong?. One only has to look at the buses coming and going from certain localities to know that it is a very evident and growing problem.

 

People do not care whether it's the Nationalist or Labour that have the solutions. They want our politicians to came together and face the problem together. If Joseph Muscat has ideas how to solve the problem, then people expect him to go to the Prime Minister and offer his help. People are not impressed who the Leader of the Opposition attacks, just to gain political kudos but in the end  offers no solution. Saying we have a problem and stopping there is not good enough. It would make more sense if Prime Minister and the Leader  of the Opposition go together to Barroso or whoever can do something  and for once speak together for all the Maltese. This is not a petty issue where one politician takes points off the other. It is not just another election campaign issue. For once let's grow up and face the truth. And politicians young and old should steer away from building on people's prejudices. This can become dirty and dangerous. Let's be all mature and manage this menace professionally. We need to be united as mature Maltese here, not a larger version of village festa rivalry Maltese. 

 

But this is hard nut  to crack. Politicians who think they have an easy solution to the immigration issue may be living in cookoo land. We're a small country. We have little power to bargain and even less to impose on the likes of France, Britain, Italy or Germany, who have a larger land area, more resources but an even larger problem. It is wishful thinking to believe that we can force these countries to come to help us. There is no Nationalist or Labour politician big enough to bully any German Chancellor or any French President. It is better for the sake of all of us that Lawrence Gonzi and Joseph Muscat stop pretending. They should come together. Agree to address the problem together and work for a solution together. While they bicker, the problem grows bigger.

 

All of those in the bars, at the workplace, in the media, who think they have solutions, should stop dreaming. I think I've heard most of these solutions. I have not heard one that makes sense. The truth is we have a large extension of sea out there. The Libyans literally wait for the boat people to leave their waters and enter our waters while the Italians wait for the winds to change so that they move back in our waters. When nothing else happens and the boat people are in danger our maritime squad, professional solders that they are, act to save lives. Our little "navy" cannot simply leave human beings perish. Its human beings we're talking about. Some of them may be crooks and vagabonds, but the majority are simple folks seeking a life out of misery. And say what you may, our navy has never shirked its responsibilities to their fellow man.

 

But boy, are we paying a high price for doing what is right even though we have no obligationexcept a christian, human moral one. The Maltese never colonised anywhere. We've never exploited anyone from any African nation. We should have been the last to have paid a price for the misdeeds of many other Europeans, for the price we are paying is for the sins of the colonial past of our neighbours.. The French, the Italians, the British, the Dutch, the Germans, they all had their share of exploiting Africa.they all made millions out of Africa. We didn't.

 

The immigration issue is like a time-bomb. Our leaders must lead responsibly and must act and be seen to act. Together for once.

 

How easy it is to make a political band wagon out of this tragedy. And how cheap.

GRTU urges industry to unite together with Government so that we can carry on updating out product. This is important now more than ever with the world economic crises looming on our shores.

The challenges ahead call for a better product and also a competitive price. If we look at our competing destinations they have all increased their marketing budgets and are introducing competitive packages.

England alone is more than ever focusing its advertising on internal holidays at a national level, which in turn we believe will also attract external tourism.

 

GRTU urges Government to give more funds to the Malta Tourism Authority for more competitive marketing campaigns and to be able to carry on negotiating with low cost airlines to increase routes to Malta.

Having a good marketing mix of airlines is important for Malta's tourism but Air Malta as our national carrier has in such times a greater role to play in introducing new routes and increasing the growth factors on existing ones.

We also urge Government to give Air Malta all its support at a time when all the airline industry worldwide is feeling the pinch.

For a company investing in human resources is highly important however during rough times this important aspect tends to be marginalized.

GRTU always believed in the importance of training weather in Malta or abroad. A company wishing to be prepared to face the challenges of today's world – competition, globalization and the international recession should invest in more knowledge, skills and qualifications.

With this in mind GRTU together with ETC and Malta Enterprise are holding an information session to launch the latest employment schemes. These schemes, we feel, will help companies in finding the right person with less expense.

The schemes that will be presented are as follows:

Training Aid Framework

ETC will be giving financial assistance to those companies and self-employed persons that invest in the training of their workforce. Training can be in-house or out-sourced and can be given in Malta or abroad through distance learning. The Training can be a course at the University of Malta or at a foreign university. The training can even lead to a PhD. 

Each company will be eligible for a maximum of €250,000 each year. The eligible costs will be explained during the seminar and will cover both the trainee and the trainers` associated costs.

The ETC will reimburse up to 80% of the eligible costs

Employment Aid Programme -EAP

The Employment Aid Programme is aimed at jobseekers that are in a disadvantaged situation due to their life circumstances. Through this programme, ETC will provide financial assistance to those employers who opt to employ these persons. 

The financial assistance will be in the form of a generous subsidy in the salary of these individuals, as well as in the employer's contribution to the employee's National Insurance. 

This subsidy will be given for a number of months, and in the case of companies who employ persons with disability this will be given for three whole years. 

Eligible applicants cover all employers, including a partnership, company, associations and other body persons, whether vested with legal personality or not and are recruiting NEW employees eligible to participate in the programme.

Date and time will be announced shortly. For early registration contact Ms. Abigail Mamo on 21232881/3 or  

 

…… this is the amount of plastic bags the consumers all over the world take from stores per minute! Its' incredible. One plastic bag uses enough petroleum to drive a car for 115 meters. In New Zealand they estimated that the 6.9 billion bags Australians and New Zealanders take from stores are enough to drive a car 800 million kilometers or 20,000 times around the world. In Italy they consume 2,000 million bags a month. It takes the world 200 years to absorb this monthly injection into the eco-system.

 

We all went to see Al Gore's film, ‘An Inconvenient truth: Global Warning Effect'. We all said what a shame and resolved to do something to save our planet. Yet now as the campaign in Malta is starting to get rid of the plastic bags, the screams have begun.  In Malta 55% of all plastic bags used are taken free from Supermarkets while 45% are taken from all the other shops. On average the Maltese use two bags per family a day. An incredible 50 million plastic bags a year.

 

My role as Director General of GRTU and as a person who is a strong believer that looking after the environment for us and for our children, is to convince people that this is not a choice but a must. It's up to all of us to lead. And as George Pullicino and Chris Ciantar know, on this issue, as on packaging waste and on waste of electrical and electronic equipment, I'm leading. Yes I'm pushing the State to take action. Yes, I ensured that GRTU on behalf of traders, retailers and service providers take action. We have set up our own management and waste compliance schemes to take care of the packaging waste and the electronic and electrical waste menace and we are prime movers on the plastic bag issue.

 

All the civilized nations are taking action. New Zealand, Australia, the UK, Scandinavian countries, Japan, and soon Italy, and other European countries will act to ban plastic bags. It is true that businesses have an interest that goes beyond environmental concern. Retailers and traders spend on the free dispensing of plastic bags in Malta a staggering 3.5 million euros. So, it makes not only environmental sense but also money sense. And let's face it: we're not banning shoes or pants. No one is being asked to walk bare.

 

Litter studies indicate that plastic bags are generally in the top twenty litter items counted although not in the top ten. Measured in numerical terms, items such as cigarettes butts are more prevalent in the litter stream, and can have wider ranging and devastating impacts on the landscape, on wildlife, and the economy through costs of dispensing and garbage collection and disposal.

 

Bags are a very visible component of the litter stream and their material persistence means the number of bags in the environment will increase over time if action is not taken.

 

Plastic bags are an environmental killer. Plastic bags are being banned across the world. China has banned plastic bags and saved 37 million barrels of oil annually. EU member states have taken various steps in this direction. In the UK, the village of Modbury took the initiative of banning plastic bags from its 43 retail outlets in the locality. This initiative was followed by a number of towns and cities across the United Kingdom. These initiatives were all on a voluntary basis. In the UK alone, 10-13 billion plastic bags are taken from shops and stores by customers. These plastic bags take anywhere between 450 and 1000 years to disintegrate in a landfill.

 

An interesting point is that Plastic bags are not choosy. A plastic bag and a degradable plastic bag are still plastic bags. Although the latter disintegrates faster it still gets caught in the wind like the others, and creates the same eyesore. Malta is now moving forward in this direction. A fee of 15 Euro cents for each carrier bag sold will come into force as of March 01, 2009. As from March or, 2009 it becomes illegal for shops, small and large, to give away plastic bags. Only the transparent, no hands, small bags given with bread and food from the counter can be dispensed free. All other bags must be sold.

 

This does not mean a plastic bag will cost just 15 Euro cents to the customer. It will eventually be more, but not less then 15 Euro cents. Enforcement officers will go round to ensure no shops give plastic bags for free.

 

It is time for the Maltese public and the business community to stand up and be counted. I have strategy encouraged GRTU and individual super markets and shop owners to back the Government authorities and find practical ways of solving the plastic bags problem. Negotiations with Government have been going on for months but a solution is now in sight.

 

Without fail these initiatives bring about a cost to one and all. We need to wake up to it. We need to wake up to the reality and the reality is that we need to leave behind us an environment for our future generations which is healthier than what we have today. The sacrifice that retailers will be made to make in the short term is more than justified in the long term, not only financially, but also as satisfaction for doing something right.

 

The Government on the hand should not look at his issue as simply another tax revenue matter. The Eco-Tax system is suspect because for us it is nothing but another revenue source and government has never been truly honest on this issue. Our negotiations with Government should now lead to better solutions. We cannot allow government on the basis of fiscal losses of any nature to interfere with environmental legislation. We have been discussing with Government Authorities how the business community will take on this initiative with the least of inconveniences. We have proposed a two month transitional period during which retailers can sell their existing plastic bags at minimally 15 Euro cents. This gives retailers an opportunity to recoup the capital spent on purchasing thousands of plastic bags which though intended for free dispensing still cost the business thousands of Euro. No business loves to see investments of thousands go down the drain however pro-environment they may be. During the first two month period, they will either contract the purchase of new plastic bags which would need to have the name of the importer or producer, Eco Contribution Reg No, and Batch No, printed in 1cm writing on one side or buy special stickers to fix on the bags already in store. After the appointed date, (we are proposing 1^st June 2009), only the new bags with the new printing and registration will be dispensed and against money not for free.

 

For all remaining plastic bags in stock retailers can also opt to buy "stick on labels" from a Government Authority costing each 15 Euro cents, and applying these to current bags in hand.

 

Another option to the retailer is that of forwarding all remaining bags in hand to Wasteserv for shredding and recycling by 15^th May 2009. WasteServ will pay back the sum of either 1 Euro cent or 6 Euro cents to the retailer on verification of the Eco Contribution paid on these bags. Government can only refund the tax imposed on each bag but cannot refund the cost on the bag as the bag was originally intended for free distribution

 

The practical other option is to start selling shopping bags made from new sources such as cotton or hemp bags or use of carton boxes, These are  the more environmentally friendly option. The bigger supermarkets will all be selling reusable, durable carrier bags of acceptable material as from March 2009.

 

Retailers will retain the right to sell the old plastic bags with stickers up to 31^st December 2009, after which date, any plastic bag for sale would need to be one required by law. ‘Stick on labels' will not be available after 31^st December 2009, for sale, but bags with the said ‘stick on label' could still be sold until they last.

 

The emphasis of the law enforcement officer will however be, as from March 1^st 2009, on ensuring that no free dispensing of any plastic bags takes place. The public will know that the age of free dispensing of plastic bags by retailers in Malta is over. We are doing our best to put into practice what we preach. We are for the environment. Our members are slowly but consistently waking up to the reality. The business community is taking the lead in this initiative. Government cannot at this stage fail. The question will be one at enforcement level as the state is ready for this. The consumer, especially the environment friendly, is expected to co-operate. Together we can put this one right.