www.l-orizzont.com - It-Tnejn, 17 ta' Mejju, 2010
Kmieni l-ġimgħa l-oħra l-kumpanija Awstrijaka li tmexxi l-Ajruport Internazzjonali ta’ Malta (MIA) ħabbret li l-irmied tal-vulkan Iżlandiż fisser telf ta’ 35,000 passiġġier għall-MIA. Wieħed jista’ jimmaġina x’tilfu ajruporti internazzjonali oħrajn ferm u ferm akbar minn tagħna. U waqt li l-MIA kienet qed tħabbar dan, il-vulkan reġa’ żbroffa, b’diversi ajruporti jerġgħu jingħalqu bil-konsegwenza li reġgħu ġew ikkanċellati numru kbir ta’ titjiriet, fosthom anke minn u lejn Malta.
L-aħħar żbroff tal-vulkan Iżlandiż reġa’ qajjem l-irwiefen fi ħdan l-Unjoni Ewropea. L-ispazju tal-ajru hu qasam fejn kull pajjiż jimxi u jadotta legislazzjoni individwali, anke jekk deċiżjoni li jieħu pajjiż A tista’, u fil-fatt taffettwa, lill-pajjiż B.
L-istati membri tal-Unjoni Ewropea ilhom għal snin twal iżommu lura milli jikkonċedu parti mis-sovranità tal-ispazju tal-ajru tagħhom bil-għan li l-ispazju tal-ajru jkun integrat u jitmexxa minn regolatur wieħed. Fin-nuqqas ta’ dan, malli l-vulkan beda joħloq il-problemi li ħoloq, il-Kummissjoni Ewropea sabet ruħha pparalizzata meta ffaċċjata bid-diżordni li żviluppat. Ħafna huma tal-opinjoni li kieku l-ispazju tal-ajru kien taħt il-kontroll ta’ regolatur wieħed il-problema kienet tkun trattata b’mod aktar effiċjenti.
F’sitwazzjoni bħal dik maħluqa mill-vulkan Iżlandiż, l-inċertezzi jridu jissarfu f’riskji kwantitattivi. Xi ħaġa li tkun trid titħalla f’idejn l-esperti biex jiġbru u jipproċessaw informazzjoni xjentifika, bħalma hu r-riskju kkawżat mill-irmied, l-irjieħat, it-temperatura u l-vijabilità tal-magni tal-ajruplani. Id-deċiżjonijiet imbagħad jittieħdu abbażi ta’ dak li jaslu għalih, meqjusin ir-riskji tal-għeluq tal-ajruporti paragunati mar-riskji li taħdem normali.
U hawn tqum il-mistoqsija li qegħdin jagħmlu, u għamlu, bosta. Jekk tali proċess hu xjentifiku, għaliex iwassal għal konklużjonijiet differenti? Għaliex kien hemm kumpaniji tal-ajru li waslu għall-konklużjoni li ma kienx hemm periklu li jtiru waqt li oħrajn ma qablux? Għaliex kien hemm pajjiżi membri li fetħu l-ispazju tal-ajru tagħhom u oħrajn le? Kien l-element finanzjarju li wassal għal ċerti deċiżjonijiet? Għax għalkemm il-proċess hu wieħed xjentifiku, id-deċiżjoni finali tittieħed wara li tkun evalwata l-informazzjoni provduta.
Il-fatt li kull pajjiż membru qiegħed juża metodoloġija differenti għall-ġbir ta’ informazzjoni u evalwar tagħha, iwassal għal regolizazzjoni tal-biċċiet u mhux daqstant funzjonabbli.
Ċertament li mekkaniżmu regolatorju għall-Ewropa kollha fejn jirrigwarda spazju tal-ajru ma kienx se jfisser li ma jitħassrux titjiriet, imma seta’ jgħin biex sitwazzjoni inkonvenjenti għall-aħħar ma tinbidilx fi kriżi, u kriżi mhux żgħira.
Tali sitwazzjoni inkonvenjenti żviluppat fi kriżi għax l-għeluq u l-ftuħ tal-ispazju tal-ajru kienu prerogattiva sħiħa ta’ kull pajjiż membru.
Id-deċiżjonijiet jittieħdu fuq pariri ta’ esperti u regolaturi li ma kellhom ebda inċentiv jaraw il-bżonnijiet ta’ regolaturi nazzjonali oħrajn.
Mingħajr mandatt biex tiġbor lill-bordijiet regolatorji u l-ispazju tal-ajru taħt kappa waħda, l-awtoritajiet Ewropej, f’sitwazzjoni bħal dik ikkawżata mill-vulkan Iż landiz, setgħu biss jaġixxu ta’ intermedjarji.
Madankollu, kull deni ħudu b’ġid. Il-vulkan Iżlandiż u l-effetti tiegħu hu ttamat li jservu ta’ stimulu biex sa tmiem din is-sena tkun iddaħħlet fis-seħħ sistema integrata fost il-pajjiżi membri tal-Unjoni Ewropea li tassigura użu, u kontroll aktar effiċjenti tal-ispazju tal-ajru fl-interess ta’ kulħadd.
B’riżultat tal-falliment ta’ banek Iżlandiżi li fihom intilfu l-miljuni f’depożiti, l-aktar mill-Ingliżi, ir-rimarka ta’ dawk affettwati meta ġew iffaċċjati mill-iżbroff tal-vulkan Eyjafjallajokull kienet tgħid: “Please send us cash not ash.” It-titlu tal-artiklu tal-lum tnebbaħ minn din ir-rimarka.
Baqar mill-Estonja
Il-ġimgħa l-oħra għaddejt jumejn fl-Estonja b’konnessjoni mal-inkarigu li ngħatajt mill-Parlament Ewropew (PE) għal tħejjija ta’ rapport b’konnessjoni mat-talba ta’ dan il-pajjiż biex jissieħeb fiż-Żona Ewro. Apparti l-inkarigu uffiċjali, huwa ovvju li titkellem dwar pajjiżek.
Li ma kontx naf huwa li kien hemm żmien meta Malta impurtat 800 baqra mill-Estonja.
L-Estonja qatt ma kellha ordni daqs hekk kbira f’kolp wieħed. Min-naħa tagħha l-Estonja tistampa l-munita karta, kroon fl-istamperija ta’ De La Rue f’Malta.
Tul il-jumejn li għamilt fl-Estonja kelli diskussjonijiet maċ-Ċermen ta’ żewġ Kumitati tal-Parlament Estonjan, il-Kumitat għall-Affarijiet tal-Unjoni Ewropea u l-Kumitat tal-Finanzi. Laqgħat oħrajn kienu mad-Direttur Ġenerali tal-Istatistika u mad-Deputat Gvernatur u Kap tal-Kumitat għall-Politika Monetarja.
Indirizzajt ukoll konferenza dwar il-munita ewro u finalment kelli laqgħa mal-Ministru tal-Finanzi.
L-ghajnuna lill-Grecja fil-Qorti Germaniza
Il-Qorti Kostituzzjonali Ġermaniża l-ġimgħa l-oħra ċaħdet it-talba għal ħruġ ta’ mandatt temporanju biex il-Ġermanja tinżamm milli tgħin tipparteċipa f’pakkett ta’ għajnuna lill-Greċja biex tinħareġ mill-kriżi ekonomika li tinsab fiha.
Madankollu l-Qorti Kostituzzjonali Ġermaniża se tikkonsidra aktar tard jekk is-sehem Ġermaniż jiksirx trattati Ewropej. Il-każ tressaq quddiem il-Qorti minn grupp akkademiku fformat minn Ewroxettiċi.
Sehem il-Germanja huwa ta’ €22.4 biljun fuq tliet snin.
Janalizzaw il-pjan Spanjol
Il-Ministri tal-Ekonomija u tal-Finanzi tal-Unjoni Ewropea għada se jkunu qegħdin jiltaqgħu biex janalizzaw il-pjan tal-Gvern Spanjol għall-miżuri ta’ awsterità maħsub biex jilqa’ milli Spanja tgħaddi mill-esperjenza Griega.
Wara li dan il-pjan ikun analizzat għada, il-Kummissjoni Ewropea mistennija tagħmel ir-rakkomandazzjonijiet tagħha f’Ġunju li ġej.
17.5.10
Britain enters uncharted territory
The Times - Saturday, 15th May 2010
For those of us who stayed up until the small hours watching the results unfold, the British general election was enthralling and completely moved along uncharted territory. Several days on, in the cold light of day, this seems to be an election that nobody won.
Gordon Brown's resignation as Prime Minister demonstrates the personal rejection of both him and his government. The Conservatives won the popular vote and 306 seats but, privately, leader David Cameron and, equally importantly, their activists, expected a workable majority of between 15 and 30 seats. To be reduced to forming a new, coalition government by offering Liberal Democrats seats in a new Cabinet, and an offer on reforming the voting system, is a nightmare scenario and Mr Cameron's authority as party leader could be fatally weakened.
On the other side, many Labour supporters regard this result as the great escape. With 258 seats in a hung Parliament, Labour are in a strong position in opposition alongside the left-leaning Scottish and Welsh nationalists and Britain's first Green party MP Caroline Lucas. Still, with a vote share of 29 per cent, it is Labour's worst performance since the Thatcherite 1980s. There can be no escaping that fact.
For the Liberal Democrats, however, this is the one that got away. Their leader, Nick Clegg, was the star of the campaign, outperforming both Mr Cameron and Mr Brown in the three US-style TV debates. Still, when it came to the crunch, the Liberal vote collapsed to 23 per cent (winning 57 seats) and far from the 30 predicted gains.
For them, the coalition means they are stuck between a rock and a hard place. There are gaping divisions between the two parties. On the issue of Europe the Lib Dems are openly federalist while Mr Cameron, especially with regard to the euro, makes Margaret Thatcher look like a diehard Europhile! Lib Dem economics spokesman Vince Cable, now a Cabinet minister responsible for banking reform, has been vocally criticising Britain's financiers for years.
But if the Lib Dems were the ones to wreck the coalition, they would face the charge that, with Britain needing to take measures to cut its £160 billion deficit, they had shown themselves too childish to provide a stable government.
On the other hand, accepting a deal involving a few Cabinet positions with the Conservatives will leave thousands of Lib Dem activists feeling bitterly betrayed.
If such a coalition were not to survive, Labour could well be in a perfect position to ram home the message that voting Lib Dem let the Conservatives into Downing Street by the back door and that the Lib Dems (alongside the Conservatives) were responsible for swingeing and unpopular public spending cuts. Labour could be back in power sooner than expected.
It is also worth remembering that most Lib Dem supporters consider themselves to be much closer ideologically to Labour than to the Conservatives. An opinion poll taken on the eve of the election revealed that 43 per cent of Lib Dem voters described themselves as centre-left or left, compared to 29 per cent who described themselves as centrist and just nine per cent who described themselves as centre-right or right.
Tony Blair's former adviser, Alistair Campbell, has already revealed that Labour HQ has been flooded with calls from Lib Dem members seeking to defect to Labour.
The fact is that most Lib Dems are either centrist or left-leaning. As a result, this election should finally end the myth that Britain is a conservative country.
With 52 per cent voting for centrist or left-leaning parties, it clearly is not.
Meanwhile, Mr Brown's resignation as Labour leader plunges the party into a leadership contest. Expect one or even both of the Miliband brothers (David and Ed) to stand, while Ed Balls, widely seen as a divisive figure, John Cruddas and Andy Burnham could also be candidates. David Miliband starts the race as favourite. However, this contest will not be completed for several months.
So, British politics is in a state of flux. How many, if any, of the two remaining party leaders will survive this British tsunami and whether a new voting system will break the centuries-old two-party hold on British politics only the future can tell.
For those of us who stayed up until the small hours watching the results unfold, the British general election was enthralling and completely moved along uncharted territory. Several days on, in the cold light of day, this seems to be an election that nobody won.
Gordon Brown's resignation as Prime Minister demonstrates the personal rejection of both him and his government. The Conservatives won the popular vote and 306 seats but, privately, leader David Cameron and, equally importantly, their activists, expected a workable majority of between 15 and 30 seats. To be reduced to forming a new, coalition government by offering Liberal Democrats seats in a new Cabinet, and an offer on reforming the voting system, is a nightmare scenario and Mr Cameron's authority as party leader could be fatally weakened.
On the other side, many Labour supporters regard this result as the great escape. With 258 seats in a hung Parliament, Labour are in a strong position in opposition alongside the left-leaning Scottish and Welsh nationalists and Britain's first Green party MP Caroline Lucas. Still, with a vote share of 29 per cent, it is Labour's worst performance since the Thatcherite 1980s. There can be no escaping that fact.
For the Liberal Democrats, however, this is the one that got away. Their leader, Nick Clegg, was the star of the campaign, outperforming both Mr Cameron and Mr Brown in the three US-style TV debates. Still, when it came to the crunch, the Liberal vote collapsed to 23 per cent (winning 57 seats) and far from the 30 predicted gains.
For them, the coalition means they are stuck between a rock and a hard place. There are gaping divisions between the two parties. On the issue of Europe the Lib Dems are openly federalist while Mr Cameron, especially with regard to the euro, makes Margaret Thatcher look like a diehard Europhile! Lib Dem economics spokesman Vince Cable, now a Cabinet minister responsible for banking reform, has been vocally criticising Britain's financiers for years.
But if the Lib Dems were the ones to wreck the coalition, they would face the charge that, with Britain needing to take measures to cut its £160 billion deficit, they had shown themselves too childish to provide a stable government.
On the other hand, accepting a deal involving a few Cabinet positions with the Conservatives will leave thousands of Lib Dem activists feeling bitterly betrayed.
If such a coalition were not to survive, Labour could well be in a perfect position to ram home the message that voting Lib Dem let the Conservatives into Downing Street by the back door and that the Lib Dems (alongside the Conservatives) were responsible for swingeing and unpopular public spending cuts. Labour could be back in power sooner than expected.
It is also worth remembering that most Lib Dem supporters consider themselves to be much closer ideologically to Labour than to the Conservatives. An opinion poll taken on the eve of the election revealed that 43 per cent of Lib Dem voters described themselves as centre-left or left, compared to 29 per cent who described themselves as centrist and just nine per cent who described themselves as centre-right or right.
Tony Blair's former adviser, Alistair Campbell, has already revealed that Labour HQ has been flooded with calls from Lib Dem members seeking to defect to Labour.
The fact is that most Lib Dems are either centrist or left-leaning. As a result, this election should finally end the myth that Britain is a conservative country.
With 52 per cent voting for centrist or left-leaning parties, it clearly is not.
Meanwhile, Mr Brown's resignation as Labour leader plunges the party into a leadership contest. Expect one or even both of the Miliband brothers (David and Ed) to stand, while Ed Balls, widely seen as a divisive figure, John Cruddas and Andy Burnham could also be candidates. David Miliband starts the race as favourite. However, this contest will not be completed for several months.
So, British politics is in a state of flux. How many, if any, of the two remaining party leaders will survive this British tsunami and whether a new voting system will break the centuries-old two-party hold on British politics only the future can tell.
Volcanic ash: an act of God turns to man-made chaos
The Malta Independent - Monday, 10th May 2010
Now that some of the dust has partly settled, and most of the travellers caught in the chaotic effects of Ejjaffjallajokull are safe at home, it is essential for individual EU member states to engage in critical analysis over their response to the ash cloud crisis.
True, the eruption of Iceland’s volcano was truly an act of God. What followed afterwards in terms of financial and social costs was all man-made. The member states’ procrastination over legislation for an improved pan-European regulatory framework was purely the EU members’ state own making.
For years these same member states have shown reluctance to concede even a token degree of sovereignty in return for an integrated airspace managed by a single regulatory body. As a result, the European Commission was paralysed in the face of increasing disorder. A single regulator managing an integrated European airspace would have been able to mitigate risk in a more efficient manner.
The risk management aims to reduce uncertainty by translating it into quantifiable risks. It involves a complex regulatory system that requires the relegation of a degree of decision-making power from governments to experts.
These experts gather and process scientific information, for example: the risk posed by the ash; winds; temperature; viability of airplane engines, and subsequently process this information using sophisticated mathematical models. Decisions are based on the experts’ conclusion regarding the risk of closure versus the risk of operating as usual.
Of course this begs the question that has been on the minds of many. If the risk assessment process is scientific and standardised through quantification, how and why did it lead to different conclusions? Some airline companies argued that it was safe to fly, other disagreed. At the same time that member states across Europe erratically opened and closed their airspace.
Was it the red ink across their financial book which was triggering some airline’s decisions? No one party was right or wrong. Although risk management is a scientific process, the ultimate decision is a judgment call based on the evaluation of the information available.
The current patchwork of regulatory framework, with each member state using different methodologies for information gathering and evaluation, makes for a fragmented and dysfunctional style of regulation.
While it cannot be argued that a number of delays would not have occurred and some flights would not have been cancelled, a consolidated pan-European regulatory mechanism would have avoided the transformation of an inconvenient situation into a major crisis.
The inconvenient situation was exacerbated into a crisis because the closure and opening of airspace was the complete prerogative of the individual member states. But as in most interdependent networks, one airport’s decision affects many others. The decisions of member states were informed by the advice expressed by their respective national experts and regulators who had no incentive to heed the needs of other national regulators.
Without the regulatory mandate to merge national regulatory boards and sovereign airspace into one integrated framework, EU authorities were limited by their role as intermediaries.
Indeed, this saga serves as a stark reminder that it is in certain areas member states that still hold the strings of power in the European political arena – sometimes at the expense of the ordinary citizen.
At least, the aftermath of the volcano will see a fast-tracking of the pending SES II. The directive will come into effect by 2010 and EU citizens will benefit from an integrated air traffic management system that will ensure a safer and more efficient utilisation of airspace. Furthermore, the revised directive will cap the growth of emissions per flight and will save the taxpayer a potential €2 billion with the possibility for more savings in the long run.
Now that some of the dust has partly settled, and most of the travellers caught in the chaotic effects of Ejjaffjallajokull are safe at home, it is essential for individual EU member states to engage in critical analysis over their response to the ash cloud crisis.
True, the eruption of Iceland’s volcano was truly an act of God. What followed afterwards in terms of financial and social costs was all man-made. The member states’ procrastination over legislation for an improved pan-European regulatory framework was purely the EU members’ state own making.
For years these same member states have shown reluctance to concede even a token degree of sovereignty in return for an integrated airspace managed by a single regulatory body. As a result, the European Commission was paralysed in the face of increasing disorder. A single regulator managing an integrated European airspace would have been able to mitigate risk in a more efficient manner.
The risk management aims to reduce uncertainty by translating it into quantifiable risks. It involves a complex regulatory system that requires the relegation of a degree of decision-making power from governments to experts.
These experts gather and process scientific information, for example: the risk posed by the ash; winds; temperature; viability of airplane engines, and subsequently process this information using sophisticated mathematical models. Decisions are based on the experts’ conclusion regarding the risk of closure versus the risk of operating as usual.
Of course this begs the question that has been on the minds of many. If the risk assessment process is scientific and standardised through quantification, how and why did it lead to different conclusions? Some airline companies argued that it was safe to fly, other disagreed. At the same time that member states across Europe erratically opened and closed their airspace.
Was it the red ink across their financial book which was triggering some airline’s decisions? No one party was right or wrong. Although risk management is a scientific process, the ultimate decision is a judgment call based on the evaluation of the information available.
The current patchwork of regulatory framework, with each member state using different methodologies for information gathering and evaluation, makes for a fragmented and dysfunctional style of regulation.
While it cannot be argued that a number of delays would not have occurred and some flights would not have been cancelled, a consolidated pan-European regulatory mechanism would have avoided the transformation of an inconvenient situation into a major crisis.
The inconvenient situation was exacerbated into a crisis because the closure and opening of airspace was the complete prerogative of the individual member states. But as in most interdependent networks, one airport’s decision affects many others. The decisions of member states were informed by the advice expressed by their respective national experts and regulators who had no incentive to heed the needs of other national regulators.
Without the regulatory mandate to merge national regulatory boards and sovereign airspace into one integrated framework, EU authorities were limited by their role as intermediaries.
Indeed, this saga serves as a stark reminder that it is in certain areas member states that still hold the strings of power in the European political arena – sometimes at the expense of the ordinary citizen.
At least, the aftermath of the volcano will see a fast-tracking of the pending SES II. The directive will come into effect by 2010 and EU citizens will benefit from an integrated air traffic management system that will ensure a safer and more efficient utilisation of airspace. Furthermore, the revised directive will cap the growth of emissions per flight and will save the taxpayer a potential €2 billion with the possibility for more savings in the long run.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)