Jorge Mora Portuguez * On 5 May the European Parliament adopted a resolution (RC-B7-0238/2010) on behalf of the European Union (EU) ban the cyanide-based mining in countries that comprise it. This resolution was issued by the parliamentary body of the Union, but to become binding, the European Commission (the executive) should accept it and return it to Parliament in the form of proposed legislation or policy.
However, in accordance with the answer given by the commissioner of Environment, Slovak Janez Potocnik, to a question from a citizen via the Internet, and without yet known in detail the formal resolution, the Commission rejected European Parliament's initiative.
this decision "invalidates the argument put forward by Parliament? No way. The arguments and justifications that Parliament would remain there, and although it was not welcomed by the Commission, it constitutes a formal resolution of the highest political body of Europe. Members of the European Parliament, unlike the Commission are elected by direct universal suffrage, is therefore in the space of representation is more democratic and representative of the Union. Its resolutions, recommendations, its pronouncements are very important political force. However, unlike the common parliaments, the European Parliament has no bill. You can only know the proposals that have been submitted to it by the European Commission (a body that has the bill in the EU). Then, when the Parliament wants to boost its own initiative any legislation or policy, issued a resolution that asks the Commission to propose, as appropriate, at the same Parliament or the Council of the European Union.
This is exactly what happened with the resolution on the prohibition of the use of cyanide in mining. The European Parliament asks the Commission to propose to Parliament itself and the Council to ban the use of cyanide. The resolution was adopted by an overwhelming majority of MPs of all persuasions (488 votes to only 48 votes against and 57 abstentions).
historic resolution. The fact that the Commission welcomed the initiative of the European Parliament does not diminish the political strength at this historic resolution, or recitals, or their motivations, it happened only evidence of the powerful political leverage with multinational mining companies and their representatives in the various levels of government. To understand why the European Commission rejected the Parliament's resolution, we must first consider its political composition. The European Commission consists of 27 commissioners who represent different parties, of which only three are currently defined as progressive. All others are clearly conservative-leaning and right, low sensitivity to environmental and social issues. No wonder therefore that the European Commission has been leaning against this historic resolution.
Parliament The case is different. It comprises 750 members, with representation from many political and ideological currents that go from right to left, through Green parties, environmentalists, socialists, democrats, centrist and pro-independence, provide a forum more representative of different social sectors that make up the Union.
Is the decision based on valid European Commission to promote mining? No way. According to the commissioner Potocnik, monitoring bodies, current legislation in the EU, as well as the technologies used in Europe for the prevention of accidents involving cyanide. Still, in accordance with the European Parliament in the last 10 years there have been over 30 incidents of this kind in Europe, some nearly graves.Por other hand we have seen what happens in the rest of Latin America, with constant spills in Mexico, Peru, Colombia, Ecuador and other countries in the region. In the case of Costa Rica and we had our first experience with the collapse of the tailings pond in Miramar de Puntarenas mine. Control
weak, high costs. Institutions like SETENA MINAET, municipalities are still too weak to exercise proper control and oversight, our water legislation is outdated, and specifically in the case of Industrias Infinito, which aims to build a mine in the area of \u200b\u200bCrucitas, no previous experience in developing mining projects and, therefore, has never used the sophisticated technology required such ventures.
Even the Bristish Petroleum, experienced multinational oil company, could provide the oil spill off the coast of Louisiana, which despite using the latest technology and most existing control has caused the biggest ecological disaster of humanity.
We can not allow our country to develop as highly risky activity. Our development model has to move towards sustainable use of our scenic beauty of our biological diversity of our flora and fauna, betting on ecotourism, the development of cleaner technologies, industries with less environmental impact and higher profitability than mining The meager profits leaving the country compared with social and environmental costs we all have to assume.
* Central American Action Network (FANCA).
0 comments:
Post a Comment