Bridges Trade BioRes • Volume 2 • Number 5 • 21st March 2002
In Brief
Philippines Considers Biotech Regulations
The Philippine government plans to require importers to notify whether their products contain genetically modified organisms (GMOs), the Department of Agriculture announced on 13 March. As stated in draft rules drawn up by the Department of Agriculture in consultation with various agencies and sector representatives, the government would compile a list by 30 June 2003 of approved commodities allowed into the country. After that date, any imported GMO not included in the list would require a permit. Importation for direct use as food or feed or for processing would only be allowed for GMOs whose importation has been authorised by the Bureau of Plant Industry, that have been authorised for commercial distribution in the country of origins, and that do not pose a significant threat to human and animal health (irrespective of their intended use). The proposed rules, which will regulate the field testing, growing, commercialisation and import of GMOs, are expected to be issued within the month.
"Philippines to require verification of GMO crop imports, DOW JONES, 13 March 2002; "Philippines eyes regulations on GMO imports," REUTERS, 13 March 2002.
Whale Meat Trade Ban Likely To Stay In Place, Says IWC
Chairperson of the International Whaling Commission (IWC), Bo Fernholm, said in an interview earlier this month that Members of the global whaling body were unlikely to revoke the current ban on commercial whaling at the upcoming IWC’s annual meeting in Shimonoseki, Japan, on 20-24 May. He pointed out that the differences between the pro-whaling camp — Japan and Norway in particular — and the anti-whaling group — led by countries such as the US and Australia — were too substantial to reach a mutually acceptable compromise. A removal of the current ban would require the support of three quarters of the IWC’s 42 Members. On 6 March, Australia had expressed its disapproval of plans by Japan and Norway to resume the trade of whale meat possibly by May this year. After an 11-year hiatus, Japan plans to import approximately 10 to 20 tonnes of red meat from minke whales from Norway over a time span of several months. In addition, Japan plans to increase its annual scientific catch. “Whaling nations are aggressively charting a course to resume hunting whales on a commercial basis, ” said Australian Environment Minister David Kemp. Both Japan and Norway gave up commercial whaling in 1986 to comply with an IWC moratorium, but Japan re-commenced scientific research whaling in 1987. This year Japan plans to catch 50 Sei whales, 150 minke whales, 50 Bryde’s whales and 10 sperm whales. Norway resumed limited whaling in 1993, arguing that it would use the meat for domestic consumption only. Australia, on the other hand, has for a long time been advocating the creation of a South Pacific whale sanctuary, which, together with existing sanctuaries in the Indian and Southern Oceans, would outlaw whaling around the Antarctic (see BRIDGES Weekly, 11 July 2000). Australia also announced that it would campaign for an end of the trade in whale products and of whaling at the IWC meeting in May.
“Interview: Whale Body Head Sees No Change In Talks,” REUTERS, 18 March 2002; “Australia blasts Japan, Norway on whale meat trade”, REUTERS, 8 March 2002.
Intersection Of Biotech and SD Addressed At Alexandria Conference
At a 16-19 March International Conference on “Biotechnology and Sustainable Development: Voices of the South and of the North” held in Alexandria, Egypt — co-sponsored by the government of Egypt together with international organisations such as the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), UNESCO, the World Bank, and the Organisation for Economic Development and Cooperation (OECD) — delegates called on developing countries to invest more in biotech research to better compete with multinational life science corporations which were ‘locking up patents at an incredible rate’. OECD Secretary-General, Donald Johnston, told the conference that new farming techniques — including biotechnology and genetically modified organisms (GMOs) — could potentially support sustainable development in poor countries as genetically engineered plants could increase crop yields and develop resistance to drought, salinity and pests. Biotech could also be used in the development of medicines to treat diseases such as diabetes and hepatitis. However, some participants pointed out that the widespread reservations on the use and consumption of GMOs would persist until biotech food was proven to be safe and scientists could show that GM crops were more advantageous to the environment or consumers than traditional plants. Delegates also argued that biotechnology was not the only solution to food security problems as the world was already producing sufficient amounts of food. Others emphasised the importance of creating so-called “gene banks” to conserve international and national collections of seeds and other plant genetic resources.
“Poor States Urged to Research Biotech, Fight Hunger”; “UK Geneticist Sees Worries Over GM Foods Persisting”; “OECD Chief Urges Rich Nations To Open Markets,” REUTERS, 19 March 2002; “‘Gene Banks’ Seen Vital For Future Food, Health”; “Biotech Industry Seen Failing To Explain
UNEP Fisheries Trade Workshop Highlights Challenges Facing Policymakers
On 15 March, a Workshop on Impacts of Trade-Related Policies on Fisheries and Measures for Sustainable Fisheries Management organised by the UN Environment Programme (UNEP) brought together government and non-governmental participants to address some of the most difficult and politically sensitive issues in the trade and sustainable development interface. The meeting focused on general impacts of trade liberalisation and fisheries management via the presentation of a group of case studies, while discussion principally focused on subsidy-related issues. Although attendees generally favoured addressing subsidies that were harmful for fisheries and trade, they were divided on how to approach them, with some participants calling for advancing a broad-based understanding of the specific factors that impacted individual fisheries (referred to as a matrix approach). Others called for a targeted approach of studying a few key areas where subsidies were thought to be particularly distortive or beneficial. Participants also discussed the definition of subsidies in the fisheries sector and their inclusion in talks at the WTO. Among the benefits of a clearer definition, according to some, would be to improve the framework for notifications in the WTO. Most participants seemed to favour a narrower definition that built on the current definition in the WTO’s Subsidies and Countervailing Measures Agreement and perhaps extended to sector specific clarification; there was little support for expanding the definition of subsidies to include the costs of fisheries management services or of inadequate enforcement.
ICTSD Internal Files.