ICELAND REJOINING WHALING COMMISSION
During a special meeting of the International Whaling Commission (IWC) in Cambridge, UK on 14 October, IWC members voted for Iceland again to become a full member of the Commission, despite the country’s reservation on the global moratorium on whaling. The vote was extremely close, with 19 votes in favour and 18 against. Conservationists now fear that the power in the IWC has shifted from anti-whaling nations to pro-whaling nations. Greenpeace oceans campaigner Richard Page said: "The commission’s decision is thoroughly disappointing and defies all common sense." Although pro-whaling nations are now in slight majority, the international moratorium on commercial whaling is likely to stay in force, as a three-fourths majority is needed to rescind it. Iceland has agreed that it will not resume commercial whaling until 2006 at the earliest, and only then under strict regulations. However, it has retained the right to start "scientific" whaling. One day after the meeting, the Swedish Environment Ministry said it regretted the "Yes" vote by the Swedish delegation. The complicated voting procedure at the IWC, and a last-minute procedural challenge by Antigua and Barbuda, which both belong to the pro-whaling camp, had apparently confused the Swedish delegation to support Iceland’s membership.
During the one-week meeting in Cambridge the IWC also granted indigenous peoples from Russia and the US a quota to hunt bowhead whales, which had been rejected earlier this year.
"Greenpeace blasts whaling body over Iceland entry," REUTERS, 17 October 2002. "Pro-Whaling Iceland Joins International Whaling Commission," ENS, 14 October 2002. "Iceland Joins Whaling Panel, Shifting Power to Whalers," The New York Times, 19 October 2002.
CGRFA DISCUSSIONS HIGHLIGHT SPLIT OVER BIOTECH AND IPRS
Debates on issues related to biotechnology and intellectual property rights (IPRs) at the ninth session of the Commission on Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture (CGRFA) on 14-18 October in Rome, Italy, highlighted differences between those countries favouring a precautionary approach and food security, and those wanting to promote market access for new technologies and their products. This division became apparent, inter alia, during discussions of the draft Code of Conduct on Biotechnology, with some countries, including Cuba, Ethiopia and India, calling for an elaboration of the code, while others, such as Australia, Canada, the EU, Norway and the US, cautioning against duplication and overlap with other forums. In the final report, the CGRFA Secretariat was requested to prepare a study identifying relevant work in other forums, the work that remains to be done and issues of particular relevance to the FAO and the Commission. Differences also emerged during discussions of what proved to be the most controversial issue at the meeting, namely the adoption of the draft revised Material Transfer Agreement (MTA) between the Agricultural Research Centres and the UN Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO). Final agreement was reached after three days of difficult negotiations, including a new formulation on IPRs, binding the recipient not to seek IPRs over the material or its genetic parts or components in the form received, or over related information.
Relevant Documents are available at http://www.fao.org/ag/cgrfa/meetings.htm. For further information on the meeting, as well as the first session of the CGRFA acting as the Interim Committee for the International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture (9-11 October 2002), see the ENB summaries at http://www.iisd.ca/.
ENB Vol.9 No. 246, 21 October 2002.
EU PLANS SUGAR POLICY REFORMS IN LIGHT OF NEW REPORT
A recent report commissioned by the Agriculture Directorate-General of the European Commission states that the EU’s sugar production subsidisation and pricing system have contributed to intensive farming practices that can lead to environmental degradation. "In the absence of price support and production quotas, the EU would probably devote a smaller area of land to sugar production and this could bring benefits of lower input use, reduced water use and/or reduced soil erosion in some areas," said the report compiled by the London-based Institute for European Policy. The report comes at a time that Australia and Brazil, which are the world’s biggest producers of sugar cane — claim that the EU is providing export subsidies to its sugar producers in excess of its WTO commitments, distorting world prices. The European Union, which has defended its pricing system in the past, has found the ACP (African, Caribbean and Pacific group) to be an ally against the Australian and Brazilian criticism (see BRIDGES Weekly, 2 October 2002). While the EC believes that the scheme is of assistance to ACP countries, it is now aware of difficulties associated with their policies and is reportedly prepared to make reforms, for which discussions will begin early in 2003.
"Lamy Says Appeal Against EU Sugar Regime Is Bad For The ACP," EUROSTEP PAF, 11 October 2002; "EU Rounds Up Developing Trade Partners To Ward Off WTO Attack on Sugar Subsidies," WTO REPORTER, 15 October 2002; "News from the DG Trade," EU TRADE NEWS WEEKLY DIGEST, 11 October 2002; "EU’s sugar policy not best for environment - report," World Environment News, 21 October 2002.