WASHINGTON PLEDGES TO HELP INDONESIA COMBAT ILLEGAL LOGGING
Washington and Indonesia signed an agreement on 16 November to work together to put an end to illegal logging in the Southeast Asian island nation. The US pledged an initial US$1 million for programmes to help save the threatened forest habitat that is home to, among other, the world’s remaining 50,000 to 60,000 orangutans.
The money will be used to improve law enforcement capabilities through remote sensing devices and by supporting various conservation groups. The US and Indonesia have also pledged to share information on trade in illegal lumber products and to cooperate on law enforcement efforts.
Illegal logging is a serious problem in Indonesia, where 70 to 80 percent of logging is done illegally on public lands, and efforts by authorities to suppress the practice have resulted in violence and even the deaths of some forest police, park rangers and NGO members.
US President Bush said the agreement sought to "fight illegal logging while promoting trade in forest products that does not threaten the region’s environmental quality". Carter Roberts, CEO of the environmental group WWF in the US, praised the agreement, stating that the "WWF is eager to support the US and Indonesian governments in this promising initiative because it complements much of our ongoing work to prevent illegal logging and enhance trade in sustainable forest products".
The agreement, which was written up in a memo on the margins of the Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation meetings held in Hanoi (see related story, this issue), is the first of its kind for both the US and Indonesia. Indonesian President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono told reporters that the US had also pledged to help the Southeast Asian nation develop biofuels and eradicate bird flu.
The EU has established its own programme to combat illegal logging and trade in related timber products, based on voluntary partnerships with exporting countries (see Bridges Trade BioRes, 28 May 2003, http://www.ictsd.org/weekly/03-05-28/inbrief.htm#3).
"US, Indonesia Agree to Target Illegal Logging," ENVIRONMENT NEWS SERVICE, 20 November 2006; "US, Indonesia Sign Pact to Fight Illegal Logging," REUTERS, 20 November 2006.
WTO MEMBERS AGREE IN PRINCIPLE TO EXTEND CONFLICT DIAMOND WAIVER
WTO Members have agreed in principle to renew for six years a decision allowing countries to block trade in conflict diamonds.
At a meeting on 20 November, the Council for Trade in Goods accepted the text of a draft deal that would allow parties to the Kimberley Process Certification Scheme for Rough Diamonds to continue to waive WTO rules in order to restrict trade in uncertified diamonds. The draft must now be formally adopted by the General Council, the WTO’s top permanent decision-making body. The original waiver, approved in early 2003, was scheduled to expire on 31 December 2006 (see Bridges Weekly, 27 February 2003, http://www.ictsd.org/weekly/03-02-27/story3.htm).
The Kimberley Process excludes conflict diamonds from legal international markets through a series of certification requirements and trade restrictions. Participant countries must certify that diamonds produced on their territory do not finance rebel groups seeking to overthrow UN-recognised governments. Diamond trade with countries that are not members of the scheme is completely banned.
In order to comply with Kimberley Process requirements, Members resort to some measures that would ordinarily violate WTO obligations. Specifically, they need to be able to discriminate between diamonds based on their country of origin (which runs counter to the most-favoured nation principle). They also must have the ability to place outright bans on diamond exports and imports — and apply them selectively on only some WTO Members, which ordinarily would run counter to WTO rules. The original waiver was hailed as an example that WTO strictures were flexible enough to accommodate other international rules.
The process was the product of cooperation among governments, the diamond industry, and the advocacy groups that first drew public attention to the fact that diamonds were being used to fuel armed conflict. Kimberley Process members are believed to account for 98 percent of legal international trade in diamonds.
The waiver decision covers Australia, Botswana, Brazil, Canada, Croatia, India, Israel, Japan, Korea, Malaysia, Mauritius, Mexico, Norway, Philippines, Sierra Leone, Chinese Taipei, Thailand, United Arab Emirates, United States and Venezuela.
ICTSD reporting; "Goods Council considers new EC enlargement, extends Kimberley waiver," WTO NEWS, 20 November 2006.
TOUGH DAY FOR MARINE CONSERVATIONISTS AS STRINGENT TUNA QUOTAS FAIL
Wrapping up a 10-day meeting in Dubrovnik, Croatia, ICCAT (the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas) announced a reduction of the annual bluefin tuna fishing quota to 25,500 tonnes by 2010; a mark which is roughly 75 percent of the current quota of 32,000 tonnes. The new quota will apply to the Eastern Atlantic and Mediterranean, where the vast majority of the world’s tuna are found.
While all of the meeting’s attendees recognised that current bluefin catches are not sustainable, governments and environmental groups were at loggerheads over just how much the quota should be reduced. The US, backed by Canada, Norway, and St. Pierre and Miquelon, agreed with ICCAT scientific assessments, which proposed that Eastern fishing quotas should be halved to 15,000 tonnes to stabilise the population at the level of maximum sustainable yield. The EU, Algeria, Turkey, Libya, Tunisia, Morocco, China, Japan and Korea disagreed, supporting and ultimately passing the more lenient 25,500 tonne quota.
Sergi Tudela of the campaign group WWF lambasted the decision, claiming that it "sounds the death knell for bluefin tuna in the Mediterranean".
French Farm Minister Dominique Bussereau criticised the conservation plan for other reasons, saying the lack of effective enforcement measures would penalise legal fisheries in favour of poachers. Scientists report that widespread illegal fishing a big reason for the precipitous decline of the Eastern tuna population.
Information on tuna fishing is available on a website jointly managed by the tuna Regional Fishery Management Organisations (RFMOs) at http://www.tuna-org.org/.
"Environmentalists Slam EU Over Tuna Catch Deal," REUTERS, 28 November 2006; "Fishing Nations Split Over Endangered Bluefin Tuna Conservation," ENVIRONMENT NEWS SERVICE, 27 November 2006.
EUROPEAN COMMISSION PROPOSES BAN ON TRADE IN CAT AND DOG FUR
On 20 November, the European Commission introduced a proposal to ban imports, exports and sales of cat and dog fur. The legislation is being introduced on animal welfare grounds, based on active requests by civil society organisations and Members of the European Parliament.
According to European Health and Consumer Protection Commissioner Markos Kyprianou, consumers "do not find it acceptable to farm cats and dogs for their fur, nor do they want products containing such fur sold on the European market". Reportedly, such fur has illegally been entering the EU market, often labelled as synthetic. China has been pinpointed as the main source, with cats and dogs being bred for their fur in the country.
The International Fur Trader Federation has however voiced concern over what it calls an unnecessary ban. According to the group, its own voluntary code is sufficient to prohibit cat and dog fur from entering the trade.
Some observers have also noted that the ban could potentially be challenged under WTO rules for being discriminatory. However, the likelihood of such a challenge to be raised appears small, as it would be politically unpopular and could, for example, lead to consumer boycotts.
Some EU member states had already introduced similar bans on cat and dog fur nationally. The European Parliament as well as member states have yet to adopt the new legislation. The US, Australia, Switzerland and New Zealand have already implemented similar bans.
"Questions and Answers on the proposal to ban cat and dog fur in the EU," EU PRESS RELEASE, 20 November 2006; "EU moves to ban trade in cat, dog fur," EU BUSINESS, 20 November 2006; "Cat and dog fur trade banned by EU," THE TIMES, 21 November 2006.