In Brief

CANADA LAUNCHES TRADE DISPUTE OVER EUROPEAN SEAL PRODUCTS BAN

Canada is taking a strong stance against European countries that have enacted or are planning to enact import bans with regard to Canadian seal products.

The Canadian government issued a statement at the end of July on its intention to challenge Belgium at the WTO over a ban on the importation and marketing of seal products, in force since April this year (see Bridges Trade BioRes, 7 September 2007). Ottawa proceeded to officially lodge a complaint at the WTO targeting Belgium and the Netherlands on 25 September (WT/DS369/1, available at http//docsonline.wto.org), claiming legislation in the two countries contravenes rules under the WTO General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) and the Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT). Imports of seal products have been banned in the US since the 1970s. A representative of International Trade Canada told BioRes that this ban - which Canada is not challenging - is different, as it targets all marine mammals, not just seals.

Animal right groups worldwide strongly oppose the annual North-Eastern Canadian seal hunt, which they claim is cruel and unsustainable. Belgium is the first country to impose a full ban, soon to be followed by the Netherlands. Similar legislation is under consideration in Germany, Austria, France and the UK. Belgium itself does not import any seal products, while several other European countries do. Norway, which is not a member of the EU, is the main importer of Canadian seal pelts and other products. The European Parliament has also called for a Europe-wide ban; the European Commission has so far not moved to propose legislation on the issue, but is undertaking studies on the topic, and products from baby seals are outlawed. Trade analysts speculated that Canada moved on the issue in order to pre-empt an EU-wide ban, which Greenland also strongly opposes.

"We don't believe there is any basis from the point of view of science or conservation to justify banning imports of seal products," commented Francois Jubinville, a spokesperson for Canada's minister of international trade. "The seal hunt is a very important source of revenue for some communities in eastern Canada," he added, noting that Canada exports C$5.4 million of seal products to the EU annually.

Livelihoods in the areas of Newfoundland and Labrador are suffering the consequences of the collapse of the cod fishery in the mid-nineties, which has never recovered. While seal products such as pelts bring in C$33 million in annual revenues, the Humane Society of Canada claims that the government subsidises the seal hunt to the tune of C$20 million each year. This year, 270,000 seals will be killed. According to Ottawa, the healthy seal population amounts to 5.5 million animals.

If the consultations now requested do not lead to a mutually-accepted solution, Canada has the right to call for the establishment of a dispute settlement panel after 60 days.

"Canada Files WTO Case Against EU on Seal-Product Ban," BLOOMBERG, 26 September 2007; "Canada Files WTO Complaint Over Bans on Seal Products," WALL STREET JOURNAL, 26 September 2007; "Canada files WTO complaint over European trade restrictions on seal products," THE CANADIAN PRESS, 26 September 2007; "Canada launches trade dispute with EU over seals," REUTERS, 26 September 2006.

The biofuels industry is finding itself in trouble due to rising food costs. The EU recently suspended its agricultural "set-aside" programme - a policy that requires European farmers to set aside ten percent of their land due to massive overproduction 15 years ago - for at least a year, sparking concerns among environmentalists over negative impacts on biodiversity.

Rising costs of food, especially corn and wheat products, have fuelled the public's growing criticism of the biofuels industry. Food prices in the US were 3.6 percent higher in August than a year before, a significant increase from the expected 2.7 percent inflation adjustment. The price of cereal in the EU has also risen due to the shortages caused by poor harvests in 2006 and 2007. Italians have complained at the cost of pasta, while the French are worried about the increased price of a baguette.

Developing nations will likely be much more hard-hit. In a warning issued in early September, Jacques Diouf, Director-General of the UN's Food and Agriculture Organisation, said dramatic increases in prices for basic food imports such as wheat, corn and milk had the "potential for social tension, leading to social reactions and eventually even political problems." Diouf went on to note that food represents up to 65 percent of consumer spending in developing countries, while it only accounts for about 10-20 percent of spending in industrialised countries.

US government officials and the European Commission alike have argued that the increase in prices has been overstated. Some analysts have suggested that producers instead have used the situation as a means to hike prices. The European Commission has argued that only four percent of a loaf was composed of wheat.

"When we break down what is happening with food prices, we do see a complex set of factors at work. It's not quite a simple equation of rising ethanol demand equals higher food prices," acting US Agriculture Secretary Chuck Conner noted at a food policy conference. "It's important to look at the big picture," Brent Searle of Oregon Department of Agriculture Searle said. "A lot of these fuel-versus-feed arguments do not stack up…Ethanol from corn is transitory [as second generation biofuel technology will rely on agricultural waste and by-products]. My concern is we don't kill the good to try to achieve the perfect."

"Don't Blame Ethanol for Food Prices - USDA's Conner," REUTERS, 2 October 2007; "European Union scraps limits on grain production in response to wheat price crisis; Eu biofuel of 10% energy use by 2020 seen as more threat than benefit," FINFACTS, 14 September 2007; "Growing Biofuels: The Sustainability Opportunity," by Patrick Mazza, 3 October 2007; "Record rise in wheat price prompts UN official to warn that surge in food prices may trigger social unrest in developing countries," FINFACTS, 7 September 2007.

WIPO EXTENDS MANDATE FOR COMMITTEE ON GENETIC RESOURCES, TK

As expected, the General Assembly of the World Intellectual Property Organisation (WIPO) - meeting from 24 September to 3 October in Geneva - agreed to extend the mandate of the Intergovernmental Committee on Intellectual Property and Genetic Resources, Traditional Knowledge and Folklore (IGC) for an additional two years.

"Members States have reaffirmed their commitment to forging ahead with efforts to reach international consensus on the protection of traditional knowledge, genetic resources and folklore" said the Director General of WIPO, Kamil Idris. In his view "the challenge now is to capitalise on this work in the form of concrete, tangible outcomes at the international level." The mandate excludes no outcome of the discussions, including the possible development of an international legally-binding document.

The IGC had failed to reach consensus on how to how to protect traditional knowledge, genetic resources and folklore from misappropriation (see Bridges Weekly, 18 July 2007).

The ICG was established in October 2000 by the WIPO General Assembly in order to develop a shared international understanding of how best to protect traditional knowledge and traditional cultural expressions against misappropriation and misuse. Two concerns lay at the foundation of the establishment of the committee: first, that the existing intellectual property legislative framework offered inadequate protection for traditional knowledge; and second, that it had contributed to the misappropriation of traditional knowledge. Views on how to facilitate the protection of traditional knowledge differ greatly, with some preferring to incorporate the its protection within the existing framework of intellectual property rights (IPRs), and others supporting the establishment of a new binding legislation to protect against the misappropriation of genetic material, including associated traditional knowledge.

The highlight of this year's WIPO General Assembly was the adoption of a 'development agenda,' which includes reform proposals aimed at placing development concerns at the heart of the institution's work (see Bridges Weekly, 3 October 2007).

ICTSD reporting; "WIPO Member State Extend International Work on Protection of Traditional Knowledge, Genetic Resources and Folklore," WIPO RELEASE, 2 October 2007.

FURTHER 'RUBBER STAMP' GMO APPROVALS IN THE PIPELINE IN EUROPE

Reflecting wide-spread mistrust of genetically engineered farm and food products in Europe, EU agriculture ministers failed once again on 26 September to muster the qualified majority required for the authorisation of three strains of genetically modified (GM) maize found safe by the European Food Safety Authority. Austria, Malta, Poland, Hungary, Slovenia, Greece, Latvia, Lithuania and Luxembourg reportedly voted against the authorisations, while France and Italy abstained, ensuring a deadlock. Britain, Germany, the Netherlands and Sweden voted in favour of the approval of the three GMOs for processing, food and feed uses. The approval request excluded cultivation.

The continued stalemate means that the final decision will be taken by the European Commission later this year. The Commissions is expected to issue a "rubberstamp" authorisation in accordance with EU legal procedures. In practice, this means that a ten-year default approval for the three strains of maize will be issued within the next few weeks. So far, every EU-wide GMO marketing authorisation granted since the approval process resumed in 2004 has been made by the Commission after member states failed to reach a decision. Luxembourg, Greece and Austria have been among those consistently voting against GMO approvals.

In addition to the GM maize approvals, the EU Commission is also expected to authorise a GM potato developed by German chemicals group BASF. The application has triggered controversy among European consumers. If the Commission approves it, the biotech potato, engineered to yield high amounts of starch, will be the first biotech product to be passed since 1998 that is designed to be cultivated in Europe. It is not intended for human consumption but rather for use in industries such as paper-making. BASF has made a separate EU application for the same potato under a different legal process to use its pulp, known commercially as Amflora, as animal feed.

In related news, the European Court of Justice (ECJ) on 13 September overturned a blanket ban on the cultivation of GMOs in Upper Austria. The decision dealt a blow to the region, which sees itself as a pioneer of GM-free farming, with broad popular support. The European Commission had already condemned the ban in 2003, and again in 2005. The ECJ noted that Austria had not been able to refute the Commission's argument that the ban could not be justified by new and 'uniquely local' scientific evidence. It also ruled that governments had no right to deprive individual farmers of the choice to grow biotech crops approved for commercial cultivation in the EU. With the ECJ's rejection of Austria's appeal, the region has exhausted all legal avenues to keep its total cultivation prohibition in place. However, uncontested precautionary legislation in Upper Austria will continue to make it difficult for farmers to get permission to use GM seeds and plants.

"No GM Free Zone", WIENER ZEITUNG, 13 September 2007; "EU Ministers Deadlocked on Three GMO Maize Approvals", PLANET ARK, 27 September 2007; "EU Environment Chief Faces GMO Hot Potato", PLANET ARK, 4 October 2007; "Biotech Maize Blocked in EU", CHECKBIOTECH.ORG, 27 September 2007.

INDIA FAST-TRACKS IMPORTS OF NON-LIVING GM MATERIAL

India has recently decided to relax the approval process for non-living genetically modified (GM) products.

The Indian Ministry of Environment and Forests issued a notification on 11 September that exempts foodstuffs that are not Living Modified Organisms (LMOs) from the existing approval process for GMOs. Until present, producers and importers had to go through the Genetic Engineering Approval Committee (GEAC), which was set up by the Ministry of Environment and Forests as an inter-ministerial body to regulate the research, testing and commercial release of GM crops, food and organisms.

This move has important implications for the food processing industry, which uses components and additives containing GM corn (such as malt, corn syrup and cereal) and soy (such as soy sauce and tofu), as it opens the door to new imports.

Under the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety, an LMO is "living" when it is a biological entity capable of "transferring or replicating genetic material." As a result, genetically modified seeds, cuttings and tissue cultures, for example, are living parts of plants. On the other hand, non-living products derived from or containing GMOs, such as milled maize and soybean derivatives used in many foods and non-foods are not LMOs.

According to a GEAC member, the mandate of the committee is "environmental safety," and since non-living products are not capable of replicating, it "does not fall in its purview."

Suman Sahai of Gene Campaign said, however, that the amendment to the rules introduces "a new set of laxity in the system and violates our own laws," as the new Food Safety and Standards Act stipulates that all genetically modified food must be labelled. Sahai added that "this will mean that there will be no traceability and in case there is a problem, there is no way liability can be fixed. This is not desirable at all."

"Doors Opened for Processed GM Foods to Enter Indian Market", CHECKBIOTECH.ORG, 26 September 2007; "New GEAC Notification Exempting GM Food from Regulatory Approval will make India a Dumping Ground for GM Foods", ORISSA COALITION FOR FOOD SAFETY & SOVEREIGNTY, 27 September 2007.

GREENPEACE REPORTS ILLEGAL FISHING BY EUROPEANS IN WESTERN AND CENTRAL PACIFIC

Greenpeace has linked illegal fishing vessels in the Western and Central Pacific, which are endangering the already critical fish stocks in the area, to European fishing firms.

The environmental watchdog reports that several large European firms, including Albacora, Calvopesca, and Conservas Garavilla, had vessels licensed to fish in the Eastern Pacific. The ships were sent west to illegally fish in the Western and Central Pacific Ocean (WCPO) - often under the flags of convenience. The 'pirate' vessels were found fishing off the shores of the island nations of Kiribati and the Cook Islands. These nations, as well as the other numerous tiny Pacific nations in the region, rely heavily on fishing as a source of income and nourishment.

Greenpeace urged the tiny Pacific nations to band together to negotiate better conservation practices and improve enforcement. However, this may prove difficult, as illegal and legal stocks often are mixed, making traceability highly challenging.

The ongoing decline in fish stocks globally has triggered negotiations at the WTO to cut subsidies that lead to unsustainable fishing practices (see related story, this issue).

ICTSD reporting; "European Fishing Pirates Hit Pacific: Greenpeace," PLANET ARK, 26 September 2007; "Fishy Business: Stolen Pacific tuna in the European market," GREENPEACE, 25 September 2007; "Robbing from the Poor, Stealing from the Planet," ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE FOUNDATION.