In Brief

ROTTERDAM CLASHES ON COMPLIANCE-FINANCING LINK, STALLS ON ASBESTOS

Delegates gathered in Rome, Italy, from 27 to 30 September for the second meeting of the Conference of the Parties to the Rotterdam Convention on Prior Informed Consent (PIC COP-2) where they discussed the link between compliance with the Convention and financing, as well as the adoption of new substances, without reaching agreement. The Convention's prior informed consent (PIC) procedure aims to promote shared responsibility between exporting and importing countries in protecting human health and the environment from the harmful effects of certain hazardous chemicals that are traded internationally. However, the link between compliance with the Convention's provisions for information exchange about the characteristics of certain hazardous chemicals and financing remains unclear. During the negotiations, links between these two issues appeared time and again, with developing countries arguing that unless they receive financial and technical support they will not be able to comply and present complete notifications including local risk assessments. Developed countries responded that compliance and financing were separate issues, with some noting that it was in the developing countries' own interest to comply with the Convention, and they should not wait for additional funds to make all efforts to comply with their obligations.

Another important set of issues related to the procedures for adding new chemicals to Annex III, which lists the chemicals subject to the PIC procedure and the desirability of including more chemicals in the list. A number of delegates and NGOs said that the PIC process would be futile if countries single-handedly had the power to prevent the addition of hazardous substances from the list for economic or political reasons. Many point to the ongoing opposition by Canada, the Russian Federation, India and others to include chrysotile asbestos in the PIC procedure (see BRIDGES Trade BioRes, 23 September 2004, http://www.ictsd.org/biores/04-09-23/inbrief.htm#1). All these issues will be taken up again at COP-3 in Geneva from 7 to 13 October 2006.

Daily reporting provided by IISD Linkages, http://www.iisd.ca/chemical/pic/cop2/.

ICTSD reporting; ENB, Vol. 15 No. 129, 3 October 2005.

INDIA TO TALK WITH CHINA ON ILLEGAL TIGER TRADE

Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh on 7 October launched a process to combat illegal trade in tigers and other wildlife products between India and neighbouring China and Nepal. Singh told the Ministry of Environment and Forests to take up the issue diplomatically with Nepalese and Chinese officials. As part of the action plan Environment Minister Namo Narain Meena will soon visit China to advocate for stronger measures against the sale of such products within Chinese borders. China is reportedly considering reopening the domestic trade in tigers and tiger parts, banned there since 1993, but only in the trade of captive-bred tiger bone for traditional medicine from so-called "tiger farms". TRAFFIC, the wildlife trade monitoring network, said that an end to the ban would threaten the world's remaining wild tiger populations by making it easier to launder black market tiger parts.

At home, India plans to increase border control and monitoring by providing training for the Indo-Tibetan Border Police and customs officers at the China and Nepal borders. Additionally, a proposal for the creation of a National Wildlife Crime Bureau, to investigate poaching cases and catch poachers, will be put before the cabinet of India next week. "We are delighted the Prime Minister is taking a lead role on the international stage and look forward to seeing effective enforcement and co-operation between India, Nepal and China to stop the trade", Belinda Wright of the Wildlife Protection Society of India said. In August 2005 TRAFFIC investigators found 23 shops in the city's main square openly selling skins and parts of tigers and leopards in Lhasa, the capital of the Tibetan Autonomous Region, evidence that sources suggested spurred the Prime Minister's actions. The Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES) Standing Committee in June 2005 asked all Asian Big Cats range states to report next year on their work in combating illicit trade in specimens of Asian Big Cat species.

"PM gets a pat for save-tiger push," OUR CORRESPONDENT, 10 October 2005; "Reopening Tiger Trade After a 12-Year Ban; WWF, TRAFFIC Fear Increase in Tiger Poaching," US NEWSWIRE, 26 September 2005; "India wants Chinese action against wildlife trade," SILICON INDIA, 7 October 2005.

UN TO BACK HIGH SEAS BOTTOM TRAWLING BAN?

Political momentum in favour of a moratorium on high seas bottom trawling appears to be building as negotiations on a UN General Assembly (UNGA) resolution to ban on deep-sea bottom trawling started on 12 October and are set to continue until 13 November. Palau, supported by Costa Rica and Brazil, is expected to propose an immediate moratorium on deep-sea bottom trawl fishing on the high seas until legally-binding regimes for the effective conservation and management of fisheries and the protection of biodiversity on the high seas can be developed, implemented and enforced by the global community. Over the past two years, the General Assembly has issued Oceans and Law of the Sea Resolutions calling on the international community to "take urgent measures to manage the risks to vulnerable deep-sea ecosystems". According to a number of conservation groups, the international community faces a crisis of illegal, unregulated and unreported (IUU) fishing. The high seas make up the majority of the world's oceans and large parts of the high seas are both outside of national sovereignty and devoid of effective internationally agreed controls for activities such as high seas bottom trawling, a fishing practice that uses nets with steel plates and heavy rollers that devastate entire ecosystems while capturing only a few commercially valuable species. However, the previous resolutions leave it upon individual states as well as Regional Fisheries Management Organisations (RFMO) to take such action. According to Kelly Rigg from the Deep Sea Conservation Coalition (CSCC), some states, following informal backroom discussions at a conference on the governance of the deep seas organised by Canada in May this year, signed a "Gentlemen's Agreement" according to which states would wait until next year in order to determine whether RFMOs indeed took effective action before they would decide on stronger measures such as a moratorium. A moratorium would require governments to impose an immediate halt on any bottom trawling on the high seas involving either their nationals or vessels flying their flag or licensed by them and should enter into force within six to twelve months following adoption of the UNGA resolution.

ICTSD Reporting; "Call to ban destructive fishing," BBC NEWS, 4 October 2005.