In Brief

US GOVERNMENT SUED FOR ALLEGEDLY IMPORTING ILLEGALLY LOGGED MAHOGANY

In a lawsuit filed on 6 June with the US Court of International Trade, a US conservation organisation and two Peruvian indigenous groups have called on the US government and timber importers to halt their imports of illegally logged Peruvian mahogany. The Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), along with the Native Federation of Madre de Dios (FENAMAD) and Racimos de Ungurahui, allege that the US government and private companies have been importing mahogany timber for use in luxury furniture without the proper documentation of legality required by the US Endangered Species Act and the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species in Wild Flora and Fauna (CITES), which has since 2003 included mahogany on its Appendix II. Under the rules governing species listed in Appendix II, mahogany is subject to strictly regulated trade on the basis of quotas and permits to ensure that trade does not compromise its survival. All shipments of the timber must be accompanied by a CITES export permit that corresponds to the exporting country's export quota, which in 2006 is 23,000 cubic metres for Peruvian mahogany.

The groups calls on the US Department of Homeland Security, Department of Interior Department and the Department of Agriculture to stop all illegally traded Peruvian mahogany from entering the US, and request three US timber companies to forfeit illegally imported Peruvian mahogany already in the country. The groups contend that loggers illegally cut the mahogany in parts of Peru that have been set aside for protection, plundering its resources and disrupting the lives of the indigenous people, and that Peruvian authorities have not been able to control illegal harvesting. However, Brent McClendon, the executive vice president of International Wood Products Association, a trade group not named in the suit, argued that mahogany imports into the US are legal. "It is accompanied by all the necessary permits, documents and paperwork that allow it to be traded legally and sustainably under international and national laws and regulations", he said. The NRDC has argued that pervasive forgery of documents and corruption makes all mahogany imports from Peru suspect.

"Federal Border Agencies Allowing Illegal Mahogany Imports, Say Native Peruvians And U.S. Conservation Group," NRDC, 6 June 2006; "Groups Seek to Halt Peru Mahogany Imports," AP, 6 June 2006; "Evergreen importer sued over Peruvian mahogany dispute," PRESS REGISTER, 6 June 2006.

EU, SAO TOME AND PRINCIPE SIGN FISHERIES AGREEMENT

The European Commission and Sao Tome and Principe have signed a four-year fisheries partnership agreement (FPA) that will replace the previous agreement, which ended on 31 May. The new agreement will last until 31 May 2010 and come into effect retroactively for 1 June once it is approved by the EU Agriculture and Fisheries Council and the relevant authorities of Sao Tome and Principe. Under the previous agreement the EU had paid EUR75 per ton of fish taken from Sao Tome and Principe's water while the private sector European fishing fleet had paid EUR25. Under the new agreement the contribution by the European boat owners has been increased to EUR35 a ton, while the EU contribution has been reduced to EUR65. In the new regime, fishing opportunities will be provided exclusively for tuna to 43 vessels as opposed to 61 under the previous agreement. The EU has also agreed to a flat-rate financial contribution of EUR663,000 per year, which includes EUR552,500 per year for European access to up to 8,500 tons of tuna from Sao Tome and Principe's exclusive economic zone. Any additional catches beyond this overall amount will be paid retrospectively. The total also includes a specific additional annual allocation of EUR110,500 to support Sao Tome and Principe's national fisheries management policy. The technical conditions governing tuna fishing have also been revised to take into account the practices specific to highly-migratory species fisheries, including requirements for the presence of regional observers and obligations to hire fishermen from the African, Caribbean and Pacific region. The government of Sao Tome and Principe said it would to dedicate 50 percent of the total financial contribution -- that is, EUR331,500 -- to the promotion of sustainable fisheries in their waters, and that it would engage in active dialogue on the fisheries policy of the country with the EU.

ICTSD Reporting; "EU and Sao Tome e Principe initial new fisheries partnership agreement", EU PRESS RELEASE, 8 June 2006; "EU and Sao Tome e Principe initial new fisheries partnership agreement," FISHUPDATE, 9 June 2006.

INDIA FILES REQUEST FOR WTO CONSULTATIONS WITH THE US ON SHRIMP

On 12 June, India requested WTO consultations with the US over bonds that importers of Indian shrimp have to deposit with US customs authorities. India's filing is based on antidumping measures imposed by the US in February 2005 on frozen warmwater shrimp from India and other countries (see Bridges Trade BioRes, 28 April 2006). Under an amendment to the US Customs anti-dumping directive, which covers shrimp and other agricultural and aquaculture goods, importers of the products have to give the US government money ("bond") that amounts to a certain percentage of the value of the past 12 months of the targeted imports, and the US government would hold the cash for one year. The amount prescribed by the formula is much higher than the previous rules, which required only a bond amounting to 10 percent of the duties, taxes and fees paid by the importer annually. In its request to the WTO, India claims that the measures under the amended directive are in violation of the WTO Anti-Dumping and Subsidies and Countervailing Measures Agreements as well as the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT). The Indian request follows an earlier legal action on the shrimp anti-dumping duties by Thailand and Ecuador against the US use of a 'zeroing' methodology to calculate anti-dumping duties and its bond requirement. Reportedly, Ecuador is next in the line of countries to contest the US imposition of antidumping duties and high bond requirements for shrimp. Their request for consultations is expected at the 19 June meeting of the Dispute Settlement Body (DSB).

ICTSD Reporting.

TARO PATENTS TO BE GIVEN BACK TO HAWAII'S INDIGENOUS PEOPLE

The University of Hawaii has decided to relinquish its claims to three patents on taro plant varieties in recognition of the plants' cultural significance for natives of the country. Taro is a tropical plant native to Hawaii grown primarily as a vegetable food for its edible corm, and secondarily as a leaf vegetable. In a statement on 3 June, the Vice Chancellor of the University said that because of the University's "strong desire to maintain appropriate respect and sensitivity to the indigenous Hawaiian culture", which considers taro to be a sacred ancestor of Hawaiian people, three patents over taro varieties crossbred to be resistant to leaf blight would be transferred to indigenous Hawaiians. Discussions are underway to determine what legal entity should be responsible for the patents, but the indigenous people, taro farmers and students who have protested against the patents have raised concerns about ownership more broadly. "Culturally significant plants such as taro should not be owned", said Sarah Sullivan of Hawaii Seed. Indigenous groups have also expressed concerns about genetic modification of taro, with Moloka'i activist Walter Ritte Jr. arguing that "You can't change our ancestors without our permission". University of Hawaii plant pathologist and taro researcher John Cho agrees that taro intended for food consumption should not be genetically modified owing to the religious and cultural significance of the crop, but has suggested that traditional breeding methods can enhance resistance to disease. The Hawaiian state legislature is currently considering two proposals which would ban until 2011 field testing of GM coffee and taro in the state and would ban for five years further GM efforts on taro. The root crop has gained in popularity in recent years, as its cultural, nutritional and food security value has become more appreciated. A papaya variety genetically modified to be resistant to the ringspot virus was introduced to the island in 2000, at a time when the domestic papaya crop was virtually eliminated by the virus, and increased the profile of biotech in domestic food security debates.

Further information on the cultural and religious links between taro and Hawaiian culture is available at http://www.earthfoot.org/lit_zone/taro.htm

"Univ Hawaii agrees to give up 3 patents on taro," HONOLULU STAR BULLETIN, 6 June 2006, " Lawmakers push limits on crop modification," KNIGHT RIDDER, 2 March 2006; "Taro genetic work blasted," HONOLULU ADVERTISER, 14 February 2006; "UH to give taro patents to Native Hawaiians," AP, 3 June 2006.