In Brief

DEVELOPING COUNTRY ROLE IN FISHERIES TRADE DISCUSSED

The Sub-Committee of the UN Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) on Fish Trade met for its ninth session from 10-14 February in Bremen, Germany. Participants discussed eco-labelling, food safety, traceability rules as well as market access for developing countries. Discussions on food safety and consumer health topped the agenda at the meeting, with participants calling both for greater safety control through traceability systems -- ie tracing the fish product from capture to consumption -- as well as for capacity building for developing countries to implement such systems and related safety controls. The risk of safety measures, implemented by countries to protect human health and/or the environment, becoming a barrier to trade and market access for developing country exports was highlighted. In this respect, participants stressed that such measures should be based on solid science in order to avoid unfair barriers to trade. Regarding market access, speakers also noted that although developing countries account for around 50 percent of the world fish trade, a major part of their exports consist of unprocessed fish instead of processed fish products, which would provide higher revenue. According to FAO officer Audun Lem, the main reason for this could be found in tariff peaks and tariff escalations for processed fish applied by developed countries (tariff peaks, i.e. exceptionally high tariffs on certain products, and tariff escalation, i.e. higher tariffs on products of higher value added). On standards, participants agreed on draft eco-labelling guidelines for fish products that would serve as global reference standards for eco-labelling systems once adopted.

The draft report of the meeting will be submitted to the FAO Committee on Fisheries for approval.

Meeting documents are available at the FAO website.

"Fish trade a success story for developing countries, but is the field level enough," FAO, 13 February, 2004; "FAO meeting on global fish trade closes in Germany," FAO, 16 February, 2004; "UN meeting on global fish trade recommends action to boost consumer safety," UN NEWS, 17 February, 2004.

GO AHEAD FOR US ACTION AGAINST ASIAN SHRIMP

On 16 February the US International Trade Commission gave the go ahead for imposing anti-dumping duties on shrimp products from Brazil, China, Ecuador, India, Thailand and Vietnam (see BRIDGES Trade BioRes, 22 January 2004). The panel decided unanimously that lower-priced aquaculture shrimp posed unfair competition to the US shrimp industry -- which mainly harvests wild shrimp -- as it is sold at lower prices on the US market compared to other markets. The decision enables the US Commerce Department to impose preliminary duties on frozen and canned shrimp from the Asian and Latin American countries in early June. The Asian countries were disappointed with the decision arguing that shrimp aquaculture in Asia is plainly cheaper than the US wild harvested shrimp production. The US Commerce Department has to find additional evidence -- until August when the panel votes again -- in order to impose the high anti-dumping duties requested from the US alliance of shrimp producers. The current decision is the first of four decisions that need to be taken before the US can impose tariffs on the shrimp products; the final decision will be taken by the International Trade Committee. However, the Asian countries have declared that they would argue their case. "We are all geared to fight the case and industry has already hired lawyers for this," said S N Menon, an official from the Indian federal commerce ministry.

"US Panel Clears Way For Anti-dumping Duty On Shrimp," REUTERS, 20 February 2004; "India says US shrimp trade ruling unfair," AP, 19 February 2004.

"Malaysia lashes out at Indonesia," US activists in illegal timber row, VANGUARD ONLINE, 16 February 2004; "US Groups Demand Sanctions for Illegal Timber Trade," IPS NEWS AGENCY, 5 February 2004; "Malaysia Denies Illegal Timber Trade Claims," PLANETARK NEWS, 16 February 2004.

NEW REGULATIONS KEEPING INVASIVES OUT OF BALLAST WATER

On 13 February over 100 countries signed a UN treaty that seeks to regulate ballast water management in the shipping industry. The two-tiered treaty, 10 years in the making, is sponsored by the UN's International Maritime Organisation (IMO). The first tier includes regulations that apply to all ships, while the second tier gives countries the option to take additional measures before allowing ships to enter their ports. After much deliberation, countries agreed on a phase-in period for different regulations, beginning in 2009 and ending in 2016. However, Andreas Inveteraas, representing WWF, expressed concern that the treaty could be slow to make an impact. "The huge challenge now will be to ratify the treaty -- and that could take years," he said.

Ballast water is taken on by ships to provide balance and stability, but in the process marine species are absorbed and can travel thousands of miles. Once let out in new environments, these alien species can disrupt foreign ecosystems. WWF estimates that 4,000 different species can be carried in a typical ship's ballast at any one time. IMO Secretary General Efthimios Mitropoulos elaborated on the problem, saying that "Unlike oil spills and other marine pollution caused by shipping, exotic organisms and marine species cannot be cleaned up or absorbed into the oceans. Once introduced, they can be virtually impossible to eliminate and in the meantime may cause havoc". For example, the zebra mussel that arrived in the US with ballast water has polluted local water supply and damaged underwater infrastructure, resulting in cleanup costs to the tune of almost USD 1 billion between 1989 and 2000. Experts fear that the problem is worsening due to increased globalisation and international trade, as 90 percent of the world's traded goods are carried by sea. How to deal with alien species was also discussed at the Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity (see related story this issue).

"UN Conference on Ballast Water Opens," UN WIRE, 10 February 2004; "UN Agrees on Laws Against Alien Marine Invaders," REUTERS, 16 February 2004.

RULES NEEDED FOR BIOPROSPECTING IN ANTARCTICA, UN

A recently released report by the Tokyo-based United Nations University notes that rules should be in place to prevent an "unregulated bioprospecting free for all", ie the search for organisms of commercial value, in the Antarctic. According to the report, "bioprospectors are starting to turn their attention to many of the world's last frontiers, such as hydrothermal vents, the deep seabed, the water column of the high seas and polar ice caps… Efforts to exploit this new frontier are now threatening to outpace the capacity of national and international law to regulate…ownership of genetic materials, the issuing of patents…and the potential environmental consequences of harvesting these resources". The report furthermore concludes that the existing Antarctic Treaty System, a set of treaties governing activity on the continent, does not adequately address the issue of bioprospecting. "Bio-piracy is happening. But the piracy isn't illegal because they're not stealing it from anyone, since no one owns it," says Sam Johnston, one of the report's co-authors 92 patents have been filed in the US and 62 patents have been filed in Europe on organisms in the Antarctic. The UN report also points out that rules should be set globally, and ensure that revenues and research information is shared amongst all members of the treaty. Josh Stevens, a member of the Antarctic and Southern Ocean Coalition, on the other hand doubts that bio-prospecting in the Antarctica should be commercialised at all. "How do you share the profits among the members? It hasn't been possible to set up a system to share revenues for fishing in the region. Bio-prospecting would be even more difficult," he said.

The UNU report "The International Regime for Bioprospecting Existing Policies and Emerging Issues for Antarctica"

"UN Wants Rules Bioprospecting in Antarctica," REUTERS, 3 February 2004; "Antarctica's Resources 'at risk'," BBC, 1 February 2004; "Prospectors start a 'cold rush' to Antarctica," THE AGE, 3 February 2004; "Bio-Pirates of the Antarctic," IPS, 3 February 2004.

TRAWLING POSES THREAT TO DEEP-SEA CORALS

A group of international marine scientists have signed a statement requesting a moratorium on the use of heavy trawling gear and related practices -- including the dragging of heavy chains, nets, and steel plates across the ocean bottom -- which damages corals and sponges on the ocean floor. Scientists want to see the current gear substituted with anchored longlines, which would float above the reefs, causing less impact. Conservationists pointed out that deep-sea coral reefs are also referred to as the 'rain forests of the sea' for their extraordinary biological diversity. It is estimated that between 500.000 and 100 million different species live in the deep seas amongst coral forests and sponge reefs. Some of the deep-sea coral reefs have just been discovered and are now under heavy pressure due to trawling practices. Deep-sea coral reefs regenerate slowly due to the low water temperatures and often do not recover at all after trawling has occurred. The statement was released concurrently with the 7th Conference of the Parties of the UN Convention on Biological Diversity in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia (see related story this issue) and the American Association for the Advancement of Science annual meeting in Seattle.

The call for action was supported by a report released by WWF, IUCN and the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) entitled "High Seas Bottom Fisheries and Their Impact on the Biodiversity of Vulnerable Deep-Sea Ecosystems". The report points to bottom trawl fishing on the high seas as the single greatest threat to vulnerable deep-sea environments and biodiversity. At the same time, the report notes that deep-sea trawling fishing only makes up a minor percentage of total global fisheries; thus, the economic effect of protecting deep-sea environments should not be a major concern.

"Deep-sea corals protection call," BBC, 16 February 2004; "Sea bed trawling, the greatest threat to deep-sea biodiversity," IUCN, 10 February 2004; "Stop deep-sea trawls to protect coral, scientists urge," CBC, 16 February 2004.

REPORT REVEALS ILLEGAL TIMBER TRADING PRACTICES IN MALAYSIA

The Sierra Club, the Defenders of Wildlife, Rainforest Action Network, Greenpeace and other environmental groups have called on the US administration to impose trade sanctions under the US Pelly amendment against Malaysia, unless the country takes steps to stop illegal timber trade. The Pelly amendment allows the US to impose sanctions on nations whose actions diminish the effectiveness of an international conservation programme. A recently released report by the non-profit environmental group Environmental Investigation Agency (EIA) and its Indonesian partner organisation Telapak revealed that Malaysian exports of ramin tree sums-up to more than twice the amount of what the country was able to produce annually. The groups claim that Malaysia illegally imports the tree from Indonesia and then re-exports it, with severe consequences for biodiversity. "Every shipment of illegal Indonesian ramin sold by Malaysia is moving the orang-utans and other species a step closer to extinction", said EIA Director Allan Thorton. The EIA report is accompanied by a video on which Malaysian businessmen explain how they obtain government issued documents to export ramin to China, Taiwan and other destinations, where it is mainly used for the furniture industry.

Under the UN Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES), the Indonesian government had to ban all cutting and export of the tree in 2001 while Malaysia can still trade ramin with a CITES permit. Despite the ban, the timber is harvested illegally in Indonesia, smuggled to and "washed" in Malaysia before being exported. Indonesian Forestry Minister Muhammad Prakosa noted this as "unfair practice" and called on the European Union to ban Malaysian ramin trade. Malaysia, on the other hand, points to its ban of ramin imports from Indonesia in 2003 to prevent illegal logging. The countries have so far not been able to cooperate on the issue -- blaming each other for not enforcing their laws.

The EIA/Telapak report "Profiting from Plunder: How Malaysia Smuggles Endangered Wood".