Bridges Trade BioRes • Volume 6 • Number 18 • 20th October 2006
CITES, PIC MEETINGS TEST BALANCE BETWEEN TRADE AND ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
CITES, PIC MEETINGS TEST BALANCE BETWEEN TRADE AND ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
The inherent tension between economic and environmental interests became abundantly clear at recent meetings in Geneva on trade in endangered species and on chemicals trade.
The Standing Committee of the Convention on the International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES), meeting from 2-6 October, pondered the question of whether to focus on banning trade in species at risk or on promoting sustainable trade, which could bring significant benefits back to the communities playing a stewardship role for such species. These issues will be fundamental to the overarching strategic plan for 2008-2013, set to be further elaborated at the next Conference of the Parties. Concrete examples discussed at the meeting included the illegal tiger trade and one-off sales of stockpiled ivory from approved sources.
Similar tensions came to the fore at the meeting of third meeting of the Conference of the Parties (COP-3) to the Rotterdam Convention on the Prior Informed Consent (PIC) Procedure for Certain Hazardous Chemicals and Pesticides in International Trade from 9-13 October. Chrysotile asbestos has been particularly controversial in this forum, where countries with significant trade interests at stake have resisted its inclusion within the PIC procedure. Critics claimed that the failure of the COP to move ahead on asbestos represented a weakening of the convention as a whole, especially coupled with the fact that the meeting failed to adopt a compliance system that would give it teeth.
How should CITES safeguard elephants?
CITES is one of the earlier multilateral environmental agreements, with a strong conservation base. During the Standing Committee (SC) meeting, as participants considered the way forward into the future, they were faced with tough questions about the fundamental role of CITES — to primarily focus on conservation through the banning of trade in endangered species, or to focus on supporting sustainable trade and wider development objectives. While the debate continues and the question remains to be settled, it is timely. The "aid for trade" agenda has recently gained significant momentum at the WTO, and the positive potential of trade in development and poverty alleviation is often emphasised.
The potential of trade in bringing revenue back to conservation and supporting sustainable development was also highlighted at the meeting. The case of one-off ivory sale provided one example at the SC. Yet, many urged great caution, questioning whether trade might lead to incentives for illegal activities, and questioning whether any monitoring system is good enough to ensure the sustainability of the resource base.
The legal one-off sale of ivory is a recurring theme on the CITES agenda (see Bridges Trade BioRes, 21 October 2004). Since the ban of ivory sales was put in place in the late 1980s, certain countries have been able to sell ivory from stockpiles derived from sustainable populations from time to time. At this meeting of the SC, Botswana, Namibia and South Africa — whose sales have been approved in principle by the COP — had hoped to move on the issue. However, the Standing Committee decided that until these countries had a sufficient monitoring system and baseline data in place, they could not go ahead with the trade. The Standing Committee did take a decision allowing Japan to be an importer once the sales would take place. The fact that the sale itself was delayed was welcomed by conservation groups. Peter Pueschel, programme manager for the International Fund for Animal Welfare, noted that "all those involved in elephant conservation around the world, who fight a constant battle to protect elephants from ivory poachers" supported the decision. IFAW also questioned the suitability of Japan as a buyer. "The previous one-off sale of ivory to Japan has spun the ivory markets in Asia out of control," according to Grace Ge Gabriel, Asia regional director for IFAW.
The issue of ivory sales will be revisited at the CITES COP-14, set to take place in the Netherlands in June 2007.
Asbestos crises at the PIC meeting
At COP-3 of the Rotterdam Convention, participants yet again failed to agree to include chrysotile asbestos in the list of chemicals requiring prior informed consent (PIC) by the importer — this despite the fact that it fulfils all formal requirements to be put on the list (see Bridges Trade BioRes, 14 October 2005). Chrysotile asbestos, mainly exported from Quebec in Canada, represents 94 percent of asbestos and is known to be a carcinogen.
Chrysotile exports and trade would not be banned when added to the PIC list, but simply subjected to certain information requirements. Yet, this was enough to antagonise countries with export interest. Some developing importing countries were also hesitant to subject chrysotile asbestos to the PIC procedure, as they feared this might add pressure to tighten local laws. Chrysotile asbestos will however be back on the agenda at the next COP.
After the meeting, UN Environment Programme chief Achim Steiner expressed his disappointment, stressing that "the lack of a decision at this time to list chrysotile asbestos raises concerns for many developing countries that need to protect their citizens from the well-known risks of this hazardous substance." Anita Normark, General Secretary of global building workers’ union BWI, went further, questioning the efficacy and integrity of the Rotterdam Convention given the difficulties of moving on chemicals where large economic interests are at stake. She said "asbestos kills one person every five minutes, more than any other industrial toxin. If it can’t be listed under the Rotterdam Treaty, then every peddler of hazardous substances will know how simple it is to protect their deadly industrial favourite. The whole process is discredited."
Some participants noted that the overall number of new chemicals proposed for PIC listing has decreased.
Meanwhile, discussions on the enforcement mechanism also were left unfinished at the meeting, despite an effort to bring Southern experts to Geneva. Issues dividing parties included whether to adopt more of a facilitative or punitive approach. The WTO dispute settlement mechanism is seen as particularly strong, with trade retaliation allowed in non-compliance cases. Under MEAs, facilitative mechanisms are more common, with technical assistance and support for implementation provided, rather than trade suspension. These measures can become expensive, and funding was discussed at length at the meeting. The next COP will continue the work on the enforcement mechanism.
Additional resources:
Documents of the CITES Standing Committee are available at http://www.cites.org/eng/com/SC/54/index.shtml. For a full report of the CITES meeting see IISD Linkages at http://www.iisd.ca/cites/sc54/
Documents of the PIC COP are available at http://www.pic.int/en/ViewPage.asp?id=420. For a full report of the PIC meeting see IISD Linkages at http://www.iisd.ca/chemical/pic/cop3/
To access the report entitled "Chrysotile asbestos: Hazardous to Humans, Deadly to the Rotterdam Convention" by the Building & Woodworkers International and the International Ban Asbestos Secretariat see http://www.lkaz.demon.co.uk/chrys_hazard_rott_conv_06.pdf
"United Nations Delays Ivory Sale," ENS, 5 October 2006; "Asbestos Kept Off Global List of Toxic Substances," REUTERS, 16 October 2006; ENB Vol. 21 No.5, 9 October 2006; ENB Vol.15 No.147, 16 October 2006.