EU AGREES TO TIMBER LICENSING SCHEME
European Agriculture Ministers on 24 October agreed to establish a scheme under the ‘EU Action Plan for Forest Law Enforcement, Governance and Trade’ (FLEGT) under which countries that export timber to the EU could voluntarily decide to negotiate partnership agreements with the EU (see BRIDGES Trade BioRes, 21 January 2005). Once the agreement was signed, the partner country would receive support to promote governance reform and would become subject to a binding licensing scheme. Under the scheme, timber exports from the country to the EU would require a government-issued license confirming the legality of the shipment in order to be permitted to enter EU borders. The license would have to state that the timber products had been produced from domestic timber that was legally harvested or from timber that was legally imported into the territory of the partner in accordance with national laws as laid down in the partnership agreement. European Commissioner for Development and Humanitarian Aid Louis Michel said "only by working in close partnership with timber-producing countries can we hope to have a real impact. The partnership agreements provide producing countries with the incentives and support required for them to fight illegal logging." However, Sebastien Risso of the environmental lobby group Greenpeace criticised the plan. "This [voluntary licensing] is like asking companies to voluntarily pay taxes. Legality should be a precondition for doing business, not a vain wish."
"Agriculture and Fisheries Council Meeting Press Release 13130/05" EU, 25 October 2005; "EU to tighten controls on illegal timber imports," EURACTIV, 26 October 2005; "EU Agrees Licensing Plan to Combat Illegal Logging," REUTERS, 25 October 2005.
WTO MEMBERS PROPOSE ENHANCED LIBERALISATION OF FOREST AND FISH SECTORS
Canada, Hong Kong, New Zealand, Thailand and the US on 14 October presented a proposal to initiate sectoral negotiations for enhanced liberalisation of the forest product sector to the WTO Negotiating Group on Non-Agricultural Market Access (NAMA) (TN/MA/W/64) (see BRIDGES Trade BioRes, 24 June 2005). Also on 14 October, Canada, Iceland, New Zealand, Norway, Singapore and Thailand submitted a proposal calling for accelerated liberalisation of trade in fish and fish products (TN/MA/W/63). Both proposals highlighted that developing countries could benefit from enhanced market access if tariffs were dramatically reduced in the sectors. They also pointed to problems such as tariff escalation — which involves higher tariffs on imports of processed products than raw products, thereby creating an additional obstacle for exports of value-added products. Moreover, the proposals suggested that trade liberalisation was consistent with conservation and sustainable development objectives, in particular arguing that forestry liberalisation would be an "important contribution in facilitating further economic development within a sector of particular export interest to many developing countries". Liberalisation would also "increase forests’ intrinsic value and foster long-term planning focused on sustainability, providing substantial commercial, social and environmental benefits". In response to arguments that tariffs are necessary to protect forests, the proponents argued that "sound forest policies that encourage law enforcement, good governance and sustainable forest management are far more effective tools to protect the environment than tariffs". The papers had been submitted in advance of the 25 October meeting of the NAMA Negotating Group. However, discussions at the 25 October meeting were dominated by concerns regarding the failure to agree on the formula to reduce tariffs on industrial goods overall.
In the past, Japan (TN/MA/W/15/Add.1), Korea (TN/MA/W/6/Add.3) and Chinese Taipei (TN/MA/W/19/Add.2) have strongly resisted accelerated, across-the-board tariff liberalisation in fish and/or forest products. Japan has argued that Members should retain the flexibility to set tariffs based on their forest and fisheries managements schemes. Korea has warned that tariff elimination would provide an incentive for increased fishing efforts, which would likely lead to over-fishing in exporting countries without proper management schemes. For its part, Mauritius (TN/MA/W/21/Add.1) has raised concerns that accelerated liberalisation could lead to the erosion of preferences currently being enjoyed by a number of poor countries, in particular in sectors such as fish and fish products that are of specific interest to the preference beneficiary countries.
ICTSD reporting.
SOUTH AFRICA CONSIDERS AMENDMENTS TO BIOTECH LAWS
A Genetically Modified Organisms (GMO) Amendment Bill was introduced into the South African Parliament on 14 October in an attempt to ensure that the country, which is the only country in Africa to have commercialised GMOs, complies with its obligations as a signatory of the Cartagena Protocol. The amendments to the 1997 Genetically Modified Organisms Act extend the rules to include the export of GMOs and the establishment of a Biosafety Clearing-House. Civil society groups criticised the new Bill for failing to address the many problems in South Africa’s regulatory system for GMOs. The bill "does not go far enough to ensure that South Africans’ Constitutional right to a safe environment is upheld and that livelihoods are not threatened," BioWatch South Africa director Leslie Liddell said. In particular, NGOs have pointed to the failure to incorporate the precautionary principle into the principles for decision-making; the absence of a mechanism for liability and redress; the lack of a clear and obligatory procedure and mechanism for meaningful public participation and access to information around decisions to grant GM permits; the lack of post-commercialisation monitoring of impacts of GMOs on human and animal health; and the absence of a requirement for an independent risk assessment process prior to commercial approval as problematic aspects of the current regime that have not been addressed in the new law.
The draft Bill is available at http://www.polity.org.za/pdf/DraftGenetModOrgAB.pdf
A report from the African Centre for Biosafety on the Amendment Bill is available at http://www.biosafetyafrica.net/_DOCS/ACBCommentsGMOAmendmentBill.pdf
"GMO Amendment Bill Tabled In Parliament Doesn’t Go Far Enough," BIOWATCH, 18 October 2005; " GMO Amendment Bill tabled," THE CITIZEN, 18 October 2005.
CBD EXPERTS PANEL ON LIABILITY AND REDRESS MAKES PROGRESS
A 12-14 October meeting of legal and technical experts on liability and redress within Article 14(2) of the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) was able to move beyond defining the legal elements of liability and redress to tackling technical aspects. The expert panel, meeting in Montreal, Canada, was mandated to clarify responsibility for damage to biological diversity, except where such liability is a purely internal matter, including working on basic concepts and developing definitions; ways to incorporate biodiversity into pre-existing liability and redress regimes; creating a liability and redress regime within the CBD; analysing activities and situations that contribute to damage to biological diversity; and preventive measures. The meeting started with a report from the Chair of the Cartagena Protocol’s Open-ended Ad-Hoc Working Group on Liability and Redress, who noted that the group at its 25-27 May meeting had struggled to define and put a value to damage to biological diversity in the context of the Protocol, an issue that also came up during the October meeting as a challenge for discussions within the CBD.
However, the CBD experts’ group called into question its mandate, stating that "it may be premature at this time to draw a conclusion that an international regime focused on damage to biodiversity should either be developed or not developed". Particularly difficult are attempts to define responsibility and extent of damage to biodiversity in the context of international trade, limited-liability corporations and potentially lax domestic legislation. Nevertheless, the meeting report highlighted the need for capacity building at the national level on liability and redress, suggesting it would be key to developing much-needed technical elements of the mandate such as defining measurements, establishing baseline indications and implementing a national laws. The meeting finished positively owing largely to this national emphasis, suggesting that the group will need to clarify the CBD’s policy role on liability and redress in the future.
The legal and technical experts report is available online at http://www.biodiv.org/doc/meetings/cop/cop-08/official/cop-08-27-add3-en.pdf.
ICTSD Reporting; "Report Of The Group Of Legal And Technical Experts On Liability and Redress in the Context of Paragraph 2 of Article 14 of the Convention on Biological Diversity," UNEP/CBD/COP/8/27/Add.3, 18 October 2005.
CULTURAL EXPRESSIONS CONVENTION ADOPTED DESPITE US OPPOSITION
The UN Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organisation (UNESCO) voted on 20 October to approve the Convention on the Protection and Promotion of the Diversity of Cultural Expressions in spite of staunch opposition from the US. Supporters of the treaty hailed the vote, which was 142 to two (with only the US and Israel against) under a majority system, as a victory for free expression, claiming that it would help governments protect national cultural identities and traditions from the homogenising pressures of foreign imports of cultural products. On the other hand, the US charged that it could serve as a pretext for arbitrary protection from free trade, could be used to curb free speech and could even be used to justify government censorship. France and Canada argued that the Convention’s affirmation of countries’ ’sovereign right’ to promote diversity in cultural expressions will give them ammunition to counter demands that they renounce the use of subsidies, quotas and other measures to support domestic cultural products. However, the US has said it will lobby against the ratification of the Convention by UNESCO countries and will try to convince them not to seek its mention at the WTO’s December Ministerial Conference in Hong Kong. At the heart of the debate is the interpretation of the provisions on the relationship of the Convention with other treaties in Article 20. The article, which is crucial in determining the relationship between the Convention’s rules on subsidies to maintain cultural diversity and the WTO’s rules on elimination of subsidies and liberalisation of tariffs, is somewhat ambiguous. While it says that "nothing in this convention shall be interpreted as modifying rights and obligations of the parties under any other treaties", implying that the treaty will not take precedence over trade agreements, it also says that countries "shall take into account" the UNESCO treaty when interpreting and applying other treaties. The Convention has been signed by 148 countries but will only enter into force three months after ratified by 30 governments.
For more information, see BRIDGES Weekly, 26 October 2005
The Convention is available at http://www.unesco.org/culture/culturaldiversity/convention_en.pdf
"Next lone U.S. dissent: Cultural diversity pact," INTERNATIONAL HERALD TRIBUNE, 12 October 2005; "US ‘Pulls Out All Stops’ As UNESCO Backs Culture Treaty," INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY WATCH, 17 October 2005; "UNESCO Adopts New Plan Against Cultural Invasion," NEW YORK TIMES, 21 October 2005; "US isolated over cultural diversity," FINANCIAL TIMES, 19 October 2005; "General Conference adopts Convention on the protection and promotion of the diversity of cultural expressions," UNESCOPRESS, 20 October 2005.
ORGANIC MOVEMENT PROMOTES ITS ROLE IN BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION
Under the auspices of this year’s World Food Day theme, "Agriculture and intercultural dialogue", the International Federation of Organic Agriculture Movements (IFOAM) took the opportunity to highlight its role in global intercultural dialogue by coming out against unfair trade practices and in support of organic agriculture. At a time when over 800 million people worldwide remain hungry, IFOAM in a press release argued that organic agriculture could make a contribution not only by reducing hunger, but also by ensuring sustainable development through the enhancement of biodiversity, biological cycles and soil biological activity. IFOAM also spoke out against the impacts of the Agreement on Trade-related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) and patents on world agriculture, saying that they undermined the protection of indigenous knowledge and agricultural traditions. "Patents on seeds and genetic resources for food and agriculture threaten sustainable farming practices, farmers’ livelihoods and food security," they argued.
The press release followed IFOAM’s recent Organic World Congress where more than 1000 delegates from 72 countries endorsed organic agriculture, allocated budgetary funds for investment in organic agriculture and agreed to promote the internalisation of social and environmental costs in the prices of agricultural products by remunerating organic farmers for ecosystem services they provide. Organic products are those which have been produced, stored, processed, handled and marketed in accordance with precise technical specifications and have been proven to consume less energy and utilise no pesticides while maintaining a high yield.
"World Food Day 2005: International Federation of Organic Agriculture Movements (IFOAM) Highlights Its Role In Global Intercultural Dialogue," IFOAM, 16 October 2005.
CIVIL SOCIETY GROUPS SHINE LIGHT ON CHINESE ROLE IN ILLEGAL LOGGING
Environmental NGOs Global Witness and Greenpeace International attacked China’s involvement in the trade of illegally logged timber in two reports released on 18 and 19 October respectively. The Global Witness report, entitled "A Choice for China: Ending the destruction of Burma’s northern frontier forests", says that an environmental disaster is developing in Burma (now known officially as Myanmar), and in particular the northern Kachin state as a result of the illegal exportation of more than one million cubic meters of timber to China. The state, which is rich in biodiversity, has seen an increase in illegal logging by largely Chinese companies, they note. Driven by a 1999 law in China to ban domestic logging because of the disastrous increase in soil erosion and flooding in heavily logged regions, and despite the fact that the government in 2001 signed the Forest Law Enforcement and Governance (FLEG) agreement, the report says that Chinese companies are openly logging and exporting timber from Kachin with the acquiescence of Chinese customs officials. The government, the report alleges, allows the logging to continue in order to facilitate the flow of foreign exchange.
The Greenpeace report, entitled "Partners in Crime: The UK timber trade, Chinese sweatshops and Malaysian robber barons in Papua New Guinea’s rainforests", documents how China imports illegal timber from threatened rain forests in Indonesia, Papua New Guinea, Malaysia, Gabon and other countries and subsequently exports finished products to countries including the UK.
The Global Witness report is available at http://www.globalwitness.org/reports/show.php/en.00080.htmlThe Greenpeace report is available at http://www.greenpeace.org.uk/MultimediaFiles/Live/FullReport/7251.pdf?CFID=3149269&CFTOKEN=26408062
"China emerges as main threat to Asian forests," GLOBE AND MAIL, 21 October 2005; "China ‘fails to curb illegal logging in Burma’," FINANCIAL TIMES, 19 October 2005; "Burmese Junta Pays China in Timber for Protection," IPS, 20 October 2005