Author: SME Chamber

The Euro is the
single currency shared by 17 of the 27 member states of the European Union.
Each of the new EU member states is expected to adopt the euro once it meets
the necessary criteria. In the long run, virtually all EU countries should join
the euro area.

The euro gives consumers in Europe considerable
advantage. Travellers are spared the cost and inconvenience of changing
currencies. Shoppers can directly compare prices in different countries. Prices
are stable thanks to the European Central Bank, whose job is to maintain this
stability. Moreover the euro has become a major reserve currency, alongside the
US dollar. During the 2008financial crises, having a common currency protected
euro area countries from competitive devaluation and from attack by
speculators.

Its creation

At the European Council in Madrid in June 1989,
EU leaders adopted a three stage plan for economic and monetary union (EMU):

1.  Stage one began on 1 July 1990, involved completely free movement of
capital within the EU, increasing the Structural Funds to remove inequalities
and economic convergence.

2. Stage two
began on 1 January 1994. It involved setting up the European Monetary Institute
(EMI) in Frankfurt made up of the central banks of the EU countries; making
national central banks independent of government control and introducing rules
to curb national budget deficits.

3. Stage three was
the birth process of the euro. From 1 January 1999 to 1 January 2002, the euro
was phased in as the common currency of EU countries that participated.

Counties having the Euro currency

Denmark, Sweden and the UK decided, for political and
technical reasons, not to adopt the euro when it was launched. Slovenia joined
the euro area in 2007, followed by Cyprus and Malta in 2008 and Slovakia in
2009 and Estonia in 2011. More countries are let to join once they have meet
the 5 convergence criteria:

Price stability, Interest
rates, Deficits, Public
debt & Exchange
rate stability

The Stability
and Growth Pact

In June 1997, the Amsterdam European Council adopted a
Stability and Growth Pact. This was a permanent commitment to budgetary
stability, and made it possible for penalties to be imposed on any country in
the euro area whose budget deficit exceeds 3% of GDP.

Macroeconomic convergence since 2007: the effects of
the crises

The 2008 financial crisis considerably increased
public debt in most EU countries. Having a common currency however protected
euro-area countries from competitive devaluation and from attack by
speculators. In 2010 the EU member states decided to set up a financial
stabilisation mechanism for the Euro area, providing €750B in funds from the member
states.

At the same time, the EU member states and
institutions brought provisions designed to strengthen the EU's economic
governance: prior discussion of national budget plans, monitoring national
economies and tightening the rules on competitiveness and reviewing the
sanctions to be applied if countries breach the financial rules. The EU is
having to take tougher action to ensure the member states manage their budgets
responsibly and support one another financially.

This is a way to ensure the euro remains credible as a
single currency and that the member states can, together, face the economic
challenges of globalisation.

 

 

The Commission has suggested
four possible scenarios for the future issuance or withdrawal of 1 and 2 euro
cent coins. These are largely focused on the cost-benefits of producing and
issuing the coins and the attitude of the general public towards the coins.

Status
quo

1 and 2 cent coins
continue to be issued under today's conditions, without changing the legal or
material context. They remain legal tender and continue to be produced with the
current technical specifications (such as metal, weight and size) and without changing
the production and issuance processes.

Issuance
at reduced costs

The coins continue to be
issued but issuance costs are reduced through changing the material composition
of the coins or by increasing the efficiency of the coin production, or both. This
would address the problem confronting most euro area Member States facing
losses as a result of issuance costs far exceeding the face value of the coins.

Quick
withdrawal

Under this scenario, the
issuance of these denominations ceases and the coins in circulation are
withdrawn, mainly through retailers and banks within a pre-established short
time period. Binding rounding rules would apply as of the first day of the
withdrawal period and the coins would cease to be legal tender at the end of
the withdrawal exercise.

Fading
out

The issuance of coins
would cease and binding rounding rules apply also under this scenario, the
coins would remain legal tender. They could still be used, but only for payment
of the rounded final sum. Since no new coins would be issued, they would be
expected to disappear gradually from circulation due to their high loss rate
and lack of attractiveness as convenient payment means.

A number of key
conclusions can be drawn from the stakeholder consultation and the analysis:

1. The production of 1 and 2 cent coins is clearly a
loss-making activity for the euro area with the difference between the face
value of the coins and the price paid by the state to get them pointing at an
estimated total cumulative loss of €1.4 billion since 2002.

2. The
attitude of the general public is rather mixed: while people are attached to
these small denominations and fear the risk of inflation if they were to
disappear, they handle these coins as non-value items and do not re-circulate
them in payment channels. The resulting high loss rate combined with the
existence of psychological prices leads to an ever-growing demand for issuance
of new small coins, which today represent nearly half of the coins in
circulation

3. While
the economics of issuing 1 and 2 euro cent coins would plead for discontinuing
issuance, cost elements need to be balanced against other considerations,
notably the negative reaction from the general public that rounding rules could
trigger.

The Commission's next step is to
continue further discussions with all the relevant stakeholders on the basis of
the four scenarios described. Should a clear preference emerge, the Commission
will come forward with the necessary legislative proposals.

LIFE+ Programme is the European Union's financial
instrument supporting environmental policy. Although there are other programmes
that relate to the environment, LIFE+ is the only EU funding programme that is
specifically and entirely dedicated to improving the environmental wellbeing of
the Community.

The current LIFE+ programme contains three main
strands, namely, Nature and Biodiversity, Environmental Policy and Governance,
and Information & Communication.

 

LIFE+ Nature and Biodiversity

This strand deals with best practices or
demonstration projects that contribute to the preservation of biodiversity and
to the implementation of the Birds and Habitats Directives. Funding depends on
the scope of the project together with the means proposed to meet its
objectives.

 

LIFE+ Environmental Policy and
Governance

The strand co-finances demonstration or
innovative projects that contribute to:

The implementation of Community environmental policy.

The
development of innovative policy approaches, technologies, methods and
instruments.

The
knowledge base as regards environment policy and legislation.

The
monitoring of environmental pressures.

The
strand carries a maximum co-financing rate of 50%.

 

LIFE+ Information & Communication

LIFE+ Information & Communication co-finances
projects that implement communication and awareness raising campaigns on
environmental, nature protection or biodiversity conservation issues, as well
as projects related to forest fire.

The strand also prioritises the dissemination of
information, raising awareness and the development of skills on environmental
matters. A maximum co-funding rate of 50% applies under this strand.

The current phase of the LIFE+ programme comes to an
end this year, and the call for proposals is open till 25 June 2013.

More information can be obtained from http://www.lifeplus.gov.mt

The national contact point for LIFE+ is the Tourism
and Sustainable Development Unit.

GRTU
President Paul Abela has called for action at last Friday`s  MCESD meeting dedicated to Access to Finance.
Mr Abela stated that though GRTU places regular pressure on banks in order to
better support enterprises, GRTU also supports local banks and is very pleased
with the strong banks we have.

Mr
Abela said that Access to Finance remains one of the biggest hurdles businesses
face on a daily basis and while we have been speaking at length on the topic
implementation has been much slower than desired. The approved Credit Guarantee
Scheme we hear has been stalled since June due to lengthy discussions with
banks with 700 applications kept pending and not a single loan has been
approved.

The
JEREMIE Scheme that worked so well has now come to an end and we do not have
another scheme ready in place because an application has not yet been
submitted. In order to avoid the gap we are currently experiencing preparations
should have been done beforehand as we know how long the process takes, we
should have learned this from the first experience we had with JEREMIE.

Access
to Finance cannot be time barred, we do not afford to have project held up because
the schemes that should facilitate finance are experiencing bureaucratic
delays. These schemes are most important to SMEs and impinge heavily on their
competitiveness. Compared to other EU firms micro and small Maltese enterprises
have no large sale volumes and therefore banking costs are not only too high in
absolute terms but also at cost pet unit sold.

The
GRTU President once again mentioned the immediate requirement to have the
interest rates for businesses revised as the rates were still too high and
prohibitive. The Governor of the Central Banks proposed the establishment of a
development bank as another institution that would complement the banks.

This
MCESD meeting was instigated after the strong comments on excessive bank
charges and bank interests on advance imposed by banks on micro and small
enterprises. GRTU had already demanded former Minister Tonio Fenech for a
report on the issue but the report produced by MFSA was never published and we
have no idea of what action MFSA had taken. Now again GRTU is asking for a
detailed analysis and comparative study with competing economies and a plan of
action to remedy the situation. This needs to be done over maximum of two
months.

In
order to ensure action the Minister for Finance Edward Scicluna gave assurance
that he is ready to form a restricted MCESD committee specifically on Access to
Finance to implement the proposals that have for so long been discussed. The
Minister also confirmed that the establishment of a Development Bank was in the
Labour Party's Electoral programme and therefore must be implemented.

GRTU has this week welcomed high
officials promoting investment in the agriculture sector and the Ambassador of
Tunisia to Malta Souad Gueblaoui. Agriculture is one of the main industries in
Tunisia, providing an important contribution to labour occupancy and GDP and is
one of Tunisia's main export sectors.

Tunisia not only has
immense land resources with 5 million hectares of agricultural land and 450
thousand hectares of irrigated land but they also encourage agriculture and
Government helps farmers and provides incentives directly. They impose no taxes on the
agricultural sector, including the purchasing of machinery. Annually they
realize 6 thousand agricultural projects valued at €270M a year. They also
offer investors the opportunity to invest in agriculture in partnership with a
Tunisian partner. Foreign partners are encouraged because they can hold 66% of
shares.

Their main partners are EU
countries, mainly Italian, French, Spanish and Dutch. Tunisian products are
sold all over Europe as European products but they are actually made from
Tunisian produce. Tunisian products are very good quality and due to their
climate they are ready for harvest earlier than EU products. They are also very
cheap because an agriculture worker is paid €12 for a days work. The products
are therefore very competitive even with logistics.

Many Tunisian products imported
from other EU countries if imported directly from Tunisia would cost much less.
Tunisia also has a trade agreement with the EU for exports.

Investment in agriculture and
pasta is being highly encouraged and Malta should become Tunisia's stepping
stone for Tunisian exports into Europe. At the end of June an agriculture fair
will be organized in Marsascala where Tunisian products will be available.

Council loses
3rd appeal at public contracts review board – Valletta Local Council has lost another appeal in front
of the Public Contracts Review Board in respect to ‘Collection of Mixed
Household Waste in Valletta'. It is the third waste mangement tender that has
come in front of this Board and the Board has taken the same decision in
relation to the same Local Council.

All Waste Management tenders issued by Valletta
Local Council in October 2012 have to be reissued. All aggrieved bidders were
refunded their deposits.

Even though these decisions were taken by the
Board, the Council continues to use its first recomended bidder, Waste
Collection Limited for all three services within Valletta in outright  breach of Public Procurement
Regulations. 

Waste Collection Limited has filed three appeals at the
Law Courts in respect to these three decisions. Our first question is whether
Waste Collection Limited has a right to appeal? The Valletta Local Council was
party to the first appeal at the Public Contracts Review Board and not Waste
Collection Limited.

And just because Waste Collection Limited filed an appeal
at the Law Courts, does this in itself give them the right to continue to operate
the three services? And where is this right derived from? How is this service
provider being paid if there is no letter of acceptance in place? Is there any
reason why a quotation for these services was not issued in line with Public
Procurement Regulations when the Council was adviced to do so by the Department
for Local Government.

GRTU Malta Chamber of Small and Medium Enterprises,
continues to harp on this matter because we are here to safeguard a fair and
level playing field for all our members. We cannot allow Local Councils to
treat our members in a different way because they see members with a different
perspective.

We cannot reach a point where the autonomy of the Local
Council means that a Local Council can do whatever it feels like doing with public
funds. Public funds are public funds and their scrutiny is very important.

We are not against Local Councils who want a better
service in a Locality in whatever service, however the tender document issued
has to be followed and adhered to anddecisions of the Local Council have to be
taken in line with the tender document.

We surely feel that it is the ripe time that the
Government should set up Adjudication Board/s in a number of different sectors
related to the day to day running of Local Councils. Tenders relating to Waste
Managment amongst others should be adjudicated by competent persons appionted
by Government through its different Ministries or stakeholders, this both to
protect public funds and also to provide a transparent and level playing field.
The Board would then adjudicate all Waste Managment tenders issued by all Local
Councils.

Over and over again, GRTU has been inundated with
allegations by contractors who operate in the waste managment sector that Local
Councils award the tenders to whoever they want. Whilst this cannot be accepted
as a blanket statement, we are sure somewhere something is wrong. And whatever
is wrong needs to be addressed and solutions found.

Valletta Local Council has clearly shown that it does not
respect either Public Procurement regulations, neither the instructions given
to it by the Public Contracts Review Board, and neither to instructions
forwarded by the Department of Local Government. Can all these Authorities be
in the wrong and Valletta Local Council be in the right?

We are of the opinion that there is more to these three
tenders than what one sees at face value today. Going through the saga from
early 2012 to date shows one trail, a trail of arrogance and half truths which
can never be accepted by the business community in this sector. This sector has
had enough and all it needs is the continued arrogance of a Local Council like
Valletta. If Valletta Local Council have got away with all this, why wouldnt
any other Local Council follow suit? Is this the way forward?

Article written by Joe Attard, GRTU Official responsible
for Waste, Energy , Transport and Environment.  

In
his intervention at the European Economic and Social Committee's 490^th Plenary session
GRTU's Director General and EESC Employers representative Vincent Farrugia
addressed the Plenary on two very important topics at the moment; The Financial
Transaction Tax (FTT) and Youth unemployment.

On
the FTT Mr Farrugia argued that when the European Commission first introduced
the FTT in 2011 it appeared as a proposal of little concern however important
developments took place and now it is worrying even its supporters. This
especially since last February the Commission published a proposal that would
allow 11 countries to go ahead with the FTT and possibly in 2014 start charging
levies of 0.1% on equity and debt transactions and 0.01% on derivatives. The
proposed rules are designed to discourage firms from avoiding the tax by
shifting trading abroad. The FTT will be charged not just on transactions that
take place within the 11 countries, but on any transactions that involve shares
or bonds issued by them. This is indeed very worrying and a new strong wave of
lobbying has started against the FTT.

On
youth unemployment official ILO figures say that 75m young people are
unemployed, or 6% of all 15- to 24-year-olds. The OECD counts 26m young people
in the rich world as not in employment, education or training. A World Bank
database compiled from households shows more than 260m young people in
developing economies are similarly "inactive". These total to almost 290m that are neither working nor
studying: almost a quarter of the planet's youth.

Young
people have long had a raw deal in the labour market. Two things make the
problem more pressing now. The financial crisis and its aftermath had an
unusually big effect on them. In Greece and Spain over a sixth of the young
population are without a job. Second, the emerging economies that have the
largest and fastest-growing populations of young people also have the worst-run
labour markets. They also have the highest share of young people out of work or
in the informal sector. Though they are at different stages of development, the
countries all suffer disproportionately from employment's main curses: low
growth, clogged labour markets and a mismatch between education and work.

In
rich countries with generous welfare states this imposes a heavy burden on
taxpayers. One estimate suggests that, in 2011, the economic loss from
disengaged young people in Europe amounted to more than 1% of GDP. And failure
to employ the young not only lowers growth today. It also threatens it
tomorrow.

A
third problem is the mismatch between the skills that young people offer and
the ones that employees need. Employers are awash with applications-but
complain that they cannot find candidates with the right abilities. The most
obvious reason for the mismatch is poor basic education. Countries with the lowest
youth jobless rates have a close relationship between education and work while
countries with high youth unemployment are short of such links.

Some
policymakers want to transform unemployment systems from safety nets into
spring boards, providing retraining and job placement and the state paying a
big chunk of their wage. Practicality however constrains certain countries'
ability to implement such active labour-market policies. Countries like Spain
and Italy, with millions of unemployed people, could not hope to follow suit in
a time of boom let alone one of austerity.

It
is hard to be optimistic about a problem that is blighting the lives of so many
people. But it is perhaps time to be a bit less pessimistic. Policymakers know
what to do to diminish the problem-ignite growth, break down cartels and build
bridges between education and work. New technology gives them powerful tools
too. Countries that make the investments and choices needed to grapple with
their unemployed youth could see some dramatic improvement ahead.

The Malta-EU Steering and Action
Committee (MEUSAC) together with the Malta competition & Consumer Affairs
Authority will be organising a consultation session on two Proposals for a
Council Regulation namely:

Consumer product safety and Market
surveillance of products

 

The impact of these two
Proposals will have positive outcomes on consumers, economic operators and
authorities.

The consultation session which
will proceed in Maltese will be held on:

Wednesday, May
29, 2013 at 2 p.m.

at Europe House, 254, St.Paul's Street, Valletta.

 

This
consultation session shall be open to the general public

 

 

The single market – The
single market also called the internal market is one of the EU's greatest
achievements. Restrictions on trade and free competition between member
countries have gradually been eliminated but the single market has not yet
become a single economy. Some sectors (in particular services of general
interest: electricity, water, fuel…) are still subject to national laws.

The
European Economic Community (EEC) abolished customs barriers between member
states to apply a common customs tariff to goods from non-EEC countries.

The
single market benefits all consumers, for example the opening up of national
markets for services has brought down the price of national telephony calls to
a fraction of what they were 10 years ago. EU airlines may now operate air
services on any route within the EU and set fares at any level they choose.
Consequently any routes have opened up and prices have fallen dramatically.

 

Physical barriers

All
border controls within the EU on goods have been abolished, together with
customs controls on people, but the police still carry out random spot checks
as part of the fight against crime and drugs. Following the introduction of the
Schengen Agreement further improvements in this regards were made. Schengen
will be explained further in another lesson.

 

Technical barriers

Since
1979 any product legally manufactured and sold in one member state must be
allowed to be placed on the market in all others. Where services are concerned,
EU countries mutually recognise or coordinate their national rules allowing
people to practice professions such as law, medicine, tourism, banking or
insurance. Freedom of people and practicing professions however still requires
further work.

 

Tax barriers

These
have been reduced by partially aligning national VAT rates.

 

Public contracts

Public
contracts in any EU country are now open to bidders from anywhere in the EU.

 

Competition

The
EU's competition policy is essential for ensuring that, within the European
single market, competition is not only free but also fair. The purpose of this
policy is to prevent any business cartel, any aid from public authorities or
any unfair monopoly from distorting free competition within the single market.

 

Protecting citizens

EU
legislation aims to give al consumers the same degree of financial and health
protection, regardless of where in the EU they live, travel or do shopping.
Europe-wide consumer protection is needed in many other fields too, which is
why there are numerous EU directives on the safety of cosmetics, toys, fireworks,
etc… The EU also takes action to protect consumers from false and misleading
advertising, defective products and abuses in areas such as consumer credit and
mail-order or internet selling.