In Brief

ICELAND BACK IN THE WHALE HUNT

On 17 October, Iceland announced its decision to resume commercial whale hunts for the first time in twenty years, ignoring an international moratorium. The government gave a whaling company a licence to hunt 39 whales -- 30 minke and 9 fin whales -- before the end of August 2007. Fin whales are on the IUCN Red List of endangered species.

The International Whaling Commission's (IWC) moratorium on whaling came into force in 1985.
Iceland left the IWC in 1992, but rejoined in 2002 with a reservation that allows the country to whale for scientific research. Its research permit allows it to hunt 200 minke whales from 2003 to 2007. 161 whales have already have been caught. The research aims to study the fish-whale relationship.

Greenpeace publicly denounced the decision and called the small quota a litmus test towards international reaction. "World opinion is rightly outraged by this flagrant disregard for international agreements," British Fisheries Minister Ben Bradshaw said. "There is no rationale for this decision, and Iceland cannot even find markets for the whale meat it gets from so-called scientific whaling." Norway and Japan, the two other major whaling countries, supported the move by Iceland to allow commercial whaling.

Iceland claims the proposed quota will not disrupt whale populations. It also asserts that whales contribute to the depletion of fish stocks, a major economic market for the country.

Set-up by the International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling (ICRW) in 1946, the IWC is designed to promote and maintain whale fishery stocks. At its latest meeting, the IWC adopted a symbolic declaration saying that the whaling moratorium no longer is necessary (see Bridges Trade BioRes, 30 June 2006, http://www.ictsd.org/biores/06-06-30/story2.htm). However, to end the moratorium, 75 percent of the IWC would have to agree.

"Iceland to Resume Commercial Whale Hunts," REUTERS, 18 October 2006; "Japan backs Iceland's whaling decision," AP, 18 October 2006; "Norway hails Iceland's return to commercial whaling," AFP, 18 October 2006.

SHIP RECYCLING CONVENTION UNDER NEGOTIATION

At the meeting of the International Maritime Organisation (IMO) Marine Environment Protection Committee (MEPC), held from 9-13 October, participants continued their work on a draft ship recycling treaty. A number of civil society organisations representing labour, environment and human rights have come out strongly against the draft, however. According to the groups, "the convention will, as it stands now, come in violation of major international norms and standards protecting Human Rights and the environment."

The IMO adopted voluntary guidelines on ship recycling in 2003. Parties agreed in 2005 to begin negotiations on a legally-binding instrument, which would also provide regulations for ship-building, so as to facilitate recycling. The Joint International Labour Organisation (ILO)/IMO/Basel Convention Working Group on Ship Scrapping also provides input to the process. The treaty is set to be completed and adopted in 2008-2009.

However, the NGO Platform on Shipbreaking, Greenpeace and the Basel Action Network, among others, stressed that the treaty is inadequate. According to these groups, it disrespects the polluter pays principle, with recipient (mainly developing) countries ending up carrying the entire financial burden of the ship-breaking activities. For example, there is no requirement that owners pre-clean ships of toxic material before they are sent away, or make them liable for past contamination. As it stands, the treaty would violate "in particular UN and ILO conventions protecting the right to a safe and healthy working environment and the Basel convention's control and even prohibition of certain toxic/ hazardous waste transfers."

"Currently about 95% of the world's asbestos and PCB laden ships are scrapped by the world's poorest, most unprotected, and desperate workforce," commented Jim Puckett of the Basel Action Network. Governments and companies send ships to developing countries such as India, Bangladesh, Pakistan and China to be dismantled because these countries have less stringent environmental regulations concerning the disposal of toxic substances. This often enables pollutants to escape into the environment and negatively affect both ship breaking workers and local communities. However, it also provides sorely needed local jobs. The French ship Clemenceau, sent to be dismantled in India and then recalled, provides a recent example of problems related to ship breaking and overlapping jurisdictions between the IMO, Basel Convention and International Labour Organisation in this regard (ILO; see Bridges Trade BioRes, 17 February 2006).

"Draft IMO Treaty on Ship Scrapping Called Immoral," NGO FORUM ON SHIPBREAKING PRESS RELEASE, 13 October 2006.

DEVELOPING COUNTRIES CONCERNED ABOUT PRIVATE SECTOR STANDARDS

A number of developing countries raised concerns over the impacts on their exports of private sector standards, such as supermarket requirements. The issue was discussed at a meeting of the WTO Committee on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures (SPS) on 11-12 October in Geneva.

St Vincent and the Grenadines -- supported by Argentina, Ecuador, Jamaica and Peru -- had raised the issue for the first time in the SPS Committee at its June 2005 meeting, citing requirements for exporting bananas and other products to European supermarkets as an example. These requirements have been developed by the Euro-Retailer Produce Working Group (EurepGap), a private sector body that sets voluntary standards for the certification of agricultural products. St Vincent and the Grenadines complained that the EurepGap standards were stricter than governments' requirements.

In response, the EU had argued that it was not in a position to intervene with private sector standards which it said simply reflected consumer demands. The EU encouraged countries who felt that the requirements constituted EU standards to raise their concerns with Brussels. Otherwise, the countries should approach the non-governmental bodies directly.

At the October meeting, St Vincent and the Grenadines, joined by Argentina, Belize, Cuba, Dominica, Egypt, Indonesia, Kenya and South Africa, reiterated these concerns and called for a more systematic discussion of these issues in the Committee. To support their case, some Members pointed to Article 13 of the SPS Agreement, which calls on countries to implement measures to ensure compliance of non-governmental standards with the Agreement's provisions.

Committee Chair Juan Antonio Dorantes Sanchez of Mexico suggested that Members provide concrete examples for discussion.

The issue of private standards has also come up in the Committee on Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT). While SPS measures related to food safety and animal health are often implemented by government bodies, many voluntary schemes that would be covered by the TBT Agreement are imposed by private actors. In this context, the proliferation of eco-labels in developed country markets has attracted particular concern from developing country exporters.

ICTSD reporting; "Sri Lankan cinnamon's future brightens, SPS Committee told," WTO NEWS, 11-12 October 2006; "Private sector standards discussed as SPS Committee adopts two reports," WTO NEWS, 29-30 June 2005.

CAN NAFTA PROTECT THE CARIBOU AND SPOTTED OWL?

A number of civil society organisations are seeking to use the environmental side agreement under the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) to prompt protection of endangered species in Canada. On 10 October, the groups made a public submission to the Commission for Environmental Cooperation (CEC) claiming that the Canadian government had failed to effectively enforce the federal Species at Risk Act (SARA) with respect to 197 of 529 species. The spotted owl and the woodland caribou top the list of most vulnerable species; their populations are dwindling due to loss of habitat to logging.

The NGOs -- including the Sierra Club (US and Canada), Nature Canada, the David Suzuki Foundation, Conservation Northwest, Environmental Defence, ForestEthics -- charge Environment Canada and other government bodies with three faults: first, the failure to list species; second, the absence of a recovery plan and identification of critical habitats; and finally, a lack of enforcement through national "safety net" and emergency orders.

The CEC is an independent body established by Canada, Mexico and the US under the 1994 North American Agreement on Environmental Cooperation (NAAEC), a side agreement under NAFTA. The NAAEC seeks to foster conservation, protection and enhancement of the North American environment in the context of increasing trade and social links among the countries under NAFTA. Under Article 14 of the NAAEC, the CEC may consider a submission from any person or non-governmental organisation asserting that a Party to the NAAEC is failing to effectively enforce its environmental legislation. The CEC will now consider the submission in order to decide whether to launch an investigation, which would be followed by a public factual record of the findings.

"CEC receives a submission on Species at Risk," CEC RELEASE, 12 October 2006; "Ottawa failing at-risk species, groups warn," GLOBE AND MAIL, 11 October 2006.

ACT NOW: CLIMATE DAMAGE WILL COST TRILLIONS

According to a new study, annual economic damage resulting from unabated climate change will amount to trillions of US dollars by the end of the century, and social and environmental harms will be "incalculable".

Researcher at the Tuft University Global Development and Environment Institute released the study entitled "Climate Change - the Costs of Inaction" on 11 October. They predict that even an increase in temperature of two degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels will have many harmful and costly impacts, outweighing the potential benefits to Northern countries, such as increased yields in temperate agriculture and decreased total temperature-related mortality. At levels beyond two degrees, the effects of global warming will be much more dangerous, as all potential benefits will vanish and all regions will suffer from extreme weather events, food and water shortages, raising sea levels following the complete melting of the Greenland ice sheet, desertification and widespread species extinctions. The report estimates that damages "could reach US$ 20 trillion by 2100, equivalent to six to eight percent of global economic output at that time".

The report stresses the need for immediate action to stem the release of greenhouse gases to keep temperature increase below two degrees. The up-front costs would be much smaller than those of dealing with the damages caused by climate change later. Frank Ackerman, one of the co-authors, noted that "The climate system has enormous momentum, as does the economic system. We have to start turning off greenhouse gas emissions now in order to avoid catastrophe in decades to come."

The report, commissioned by Friends of the Earth, is available at http://ase.tufts.edu/gdae/Pubs/rp/Climate-CostsofInaction.pdf.

"Climate Change Could Cost Economy Trillions", EDIE NEWS, 17 October 2006; "Economists Warn Climate Change Will Cost Trillions if Governments Fail to Act", MEDIA ADVISORY, FRIENDS OF THE EARTH INTERNATIONAL, 13 October 2006.

CONFERENCE PROMOTES SUSTAINABLE BIOENERGY AGENDA

Experts from governments, NGOs, business and science gathered from 12-13 October at an international conference on "Sustainable Bioenergy - Challenges and Opportunities" in Bonn -- hosted by the German NGO Forum Environment & Development and the United Nations Foundation -- to discuss the opportunities for bioenergy, assess sustainability challenges and try to identify viable solutions for promoting bioenergy.

While generally recognising the potential of bioenergy in promoting sustainable development, participants acknowledged that bioenergy was only part of bigger picture, and had to be examined in relation to agriculture and food production, environment and ecosystems as well as the economics of energy.

On the positive side, bioenergy has the potential to significantly reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and could generate important employment in rural areas both in the developed and developing countries.

However, the production of biofuels also present serious social and environmental risks that need to be addressed. In particular, the issue of competition between food and energy production -- especially with regard to biofuels generated from food crops -- was raised. Global energy needs as such are also too great to be met by bioenergy, and there is a need to put in place policies and mechanisms to ensure that bioenergy production does not lead to further environmental degradation, such as deforestation and loss of biodiversity.

Several presentations highlighted the potential of developing countries for taking advantage of bioenergy both for domestic energy use and the export market. Participants felt, however, that domestic needs should be filled first. Participants also discussed a number of international trade issues that needed to be better understood in terms of their contribution to advancing a sustainable bioenergy agenda. These included market access, the issue of subsidies, the need for and merit of having social and environmental standards, as well as labelling schemes.

Participants agreed to put in place a web-based mechanism that would build on the momentum generated at the meeting and allow for further interactive dialogues to take place.

For further information on the meeting and to view the presentations, visit http://www.forum-ue.de/bioenergy/e/conference.html.

ICTSD reporting.