In Brief

CHINESE BLOCK IMPORTS OF BURMESE TIMBER

A ban placed by Chinese officials on imports of timber from Burma has led to dramatic cuts in flows of illegal timber, the lobby group Global Witness said on 30 May. At the request of the Burmese government, the Provincial Government of Yunnan on 27 March had instructed Chinese border checkpoints to stop imports of "all sorts of timber and mineral products from Burma" (now known officially as Myanmar), which are presumed by both governments to be illegal when sent by land as opposed to better-regulated sea transactions. Chinese timber workers in Burma have also been told to return home and it has been made a criminal offence in China to import timber (by land) from or perform logging in Burma. Since the issuance of the order, land-based trade flows between the two countries have been cut significantly and most border crossings are enforcing the ban, though some timber is still entering via border back roads. At least 200 Chinese workers have been arrested by the Burmese government. Bilateral talks between the Yunnan and Burma governments on timber and mineral trading cooperation are continuing. Following publicity from a report several months ago regarding European imports of processed forest products from China that used illegally logged timber from Burma (see Bridges Trade BioRes, 28 October 2005), EU officials have raised concerns a few times in high-level meetings with Chinese diplomats about Chinese sourcing from Burmese regions characterised by civil unrest and illegal activities. Although it is uncertain exactly why the Rangoon-based military junta in Burma would like to see the illegal exports stop, sources in the country suggest key factors include losses in government revenue from forgone taxes, the difficulty that legal Burmese exporters of forest producers face in international markets to compete with Chinese exporters that use cheap illegally-harvested Burmese wood, and the financial support the illegal timber exports give to armed opposition groups in the country.

ICTSD Reporting; "China Blocks Timber Imports From Burma," GLOBAL WITNESS, 30 May 2006; "China Blocks Timber Imports from Burma," 31 May 2006; "China cracking down on illegal timber from Myanmar," REUTERS, 1 June 2006.

PROPOSAL TO ELIMINATE TARIFFS ON TRADE IN CHEMICALS

A proposal to eliminate all tariffs on trade in chemicals at the WTO was put forward on 15 May by Canada, Norway, Singapore, Switzerland, Taiwan and the US (TN/MA/W/72) in the WTO Negotiating Group on Non-Agricultural Market Access (NAMA). Under the proposal, once enough WTO Members got on board ("critical mass"), developed country supporters of the plurilateral "sectoral" initiative would eliminate their tariffs immediately, while developing countries would be given longer periods to implement tariff reductions for certain highly sensitive products, but would nonetheless be expected to bring their tariffs to zero. The tariff reductions would apply to a wide range of chemicals, including fertilizers, pharmaceutical products, explosives, herbicides and organic and inorganic chemicals. These tariff reductions would be voluntary and go beyond the requirements of the formula to be agreed in the NAMA negotiations for products overall. Trade in and production of chemicals is also governed by the Stockholm Convention, which regulates persistent organic pollutants, the Rotterdam Convention, which introduces prior informed consent procedures for certain hazardous chemicals and pesticides, and the Montreal Protocol on ozone-depleting substances (see http://www.trade-environment.org/page/ictsd/news/chemicals.htm for news coverage). The Conventions cover a number of chemicals that are listed as candidates for tariff cuts in the WTO proposal, including fertilizers, methyl bromide and carbon-based chemicals, but the relationship between these multilateral environmental agreements (MEAs) and the proposal has not yet been discussed at the meeting.

ICTSD Reporting.

INDIA REVEALS BIOTECH LABEL LAW

The Indian Health Ministry on 22 May published draft rules on biotech labelling under which all food and food products containing genetically modified organisms (GMOs) or produced using modern biotechnology must be labelled before being placed on the market. Under the proposed amendments to the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules (PFA), 1955, any food that either is a GMO, has GM ingredients, or has been "derived from biotechnology" must be labelled as such, including on any relevant packaging, regardless of whether the product has been imported or domestically produced. Similarly, the rules say that imported GM food must also include a label indicating that the product has been cleared for marketing and use in the country of origin. The rules, which come on the heels of the publication of guidelines for approval of GM imports that were recently notified to the WTO (G/TBT/N/IND/17) (see Bridges Trade BioRes, 19 May 2006), confirm that imports of GM products without the approval of the Genetic Engineering Approval Committee (GEAC) are prohibited. Although the rules were promulgated with the goal of "providing correct information to consumers", civil society groups assailed the text as a "means for legalising contamination by employing a regulatory system that is deeply flawed", confirming their ongoing opposition to the approval of GM crops, and in particular Bt cotton, in light of continued uncertainty about the environmental and food security impacts of the crops. Business groups expressed concerns regarding the implications of labelling on costs of production and segregation. Practical concerns have also been raised regarding the feasibility of labelling in a country where the vast majority of food is not packaged. Notwithstanding the broad scope of these rules which will go into effect at the end of June, GEAC at its 22 May meeting decided that the soy oil importing industry could file for a one-time GEAC approval of imports of GM soy bean oil derived from Round up Ready Soybean. The decision marks an exemption from overall GM approval framework under the PFA which the committee justified by the absence of GMOs in the final, processed soy oil. Some actors interpreted this as a decision that GEAC approval is only necessary where the final product itself includes GMOs, which the Ministry of Environment reportedly confirmed.

The labelling rules are available at http://pib.nic.in/release/release.asp?relid=17941

Information on GEAC is available at http://www.envfor.nic.in/divisions/csurv/geac/geac_home.html

"India to ease controls on gene-modified oils," REUTERS, 26 May 2006; "Draft rules for labelling of GM food in India," NEW KERALA, 23 May 2006; "CSA-India: Ministry of Health and Family Welfare re GM Labelling Rules," Centre for Sustainable Agriculture, 15 April 2006; "Decision taken in the 67th Meeting of the GEAC held on 22nd May, 2006," GEAC, 22 May 2006; "GEAC spares refined GM oils mandatory pre-import test," FINANCIAL EXPRESS, 31 May 2006.

MUTUAL SUPPORTIVENESS OF WTO, CBD A "SLIGHT PROBLEM": LAMY

At a speech during the 30 May opening ceremony of the annual EU "Green Week", WTO Director-General Pascal Lamy suggested that the WTO faces two environmental challenges, namely how to deal with unilateral transboundary actions to protect the environment and how the WTO should interface with MEA rules. Noting that the WTO dispute ruling on the shrimp-turtle case led to the creation of a new MEA on the Conservation and Management of Marine Turtles and their Habitats in the Indian Ocean and South-East Asia, he suggested that the WTO could also employ MEAs to achieve its trade and sustainable development objectives, including as a legal framework to prevent one country from taking a unilateral trade-related action for environmental purposes. In reference to the Convention on Biological Diversity, he noted that "we have a slight problem in that WTO and CBD rules and objectives" are not identical, and that Members are divided particularly on whether there is a need for an amendment to the WTO's Agreement on Trade-related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) to reflect better the CBD objective of ensuring fair and equitable sharing of the benefits from biodiversity. "It is incumbent on all countries to use intellectual property rights in a manner that fosters biodiversity," he argued. On 29 May, Lamy met with CBD Executive Secretary Ahmed Djoghlaf to discuss how the two organisations can work together to fulfil their mandates, achieve sustainable development and be mutually supportive. The first-ever meeting of the WTO Director-General and CBD Executive Secretary opened up "new avenues of collaboration", Djoghlaf said.

The EU's Green Week conference, organised to celebrate international environment day (see related In Brief, this issue), was held 30 May - 2 June and examined, amongst other issues, the impact of trade on biodiversity. During a session on 1 June, participants discussed how biodiversity could be used as a means to facilitate economic development. For example, delegates examined how the "branding" of nature-based products and eco tourism may be advantageous to biodiversity and growth in developing countries.

For more information on Green Week, visit http://ec.europa.eu/environment/greenweek/poster.html

"Lamy urges members to support multilateral environmental accords," WTO, 30 May 2006; "Biodiversity: Vaclav Havel questions economic growth obsession," EURACTIV, 30 May 2006.

BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY, ENVIRONMENT DAYS CELEBRATED

The Executive Secretary of the Convention on Biological Diversity, on the occasion of the International Day for Biological Diversity on 22 May, urged the global community to address threats to maintaining and protecting the planet's biological diversity. Ahmed Djoghlaf, in comments made to commemorate the occasion, noted that the theme selected for the event was protecting biodiversity in the drylands. He noted that most of the world's drylands are found in eight of the world's ten poorest countries. Thus, "actions to conserve and maintain the health of drylands are intimately linked to the achievement of the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs)". Celebrations and commemorations of the planet's biodiversity were held around the world, including seminars in Thailand, a photo exhibition in Brazil and a biodiversity communications workshop for journalists in Honduras. To draw attention to the role of trade in exacerbating land degradation, Greenpeace activists around the world mobilised on 22 May to draw attention to the role of European imports of soy feed for farm animals from land that has been converted from biodiversity-rich rainforests in the Amazon rainforest. World Environment Day, which also focused on deserts and desertification, will be celebrated on 5 June.

Information on World Environment Day is available at www.unep.org/wed/

Information on International Day for Biological Diversity is available at http://www.biodiv.org/programmes/outreach/awareness/biodiv-day-2006-ctrs.shtml

"Message of the Executive Secretary of the CBD," CBD, 22 May 2006; "Greenpeace Slams US Commodities Giant for Amazon Crimes," GREENPEACE, 22 May 2006.