Freitag, 15. März 2013
An edited version of this post on CITES COP 16 is on the greenpeace.org website.
If I baked a cake for every significant birthday of an international environmental agreement, I would have a weight problem right now. There has been an avalanche of birthdays recently: the Montreal Protocol to protect the Ozone layer turned 25; the Constitution of the Oceans - called UNCLOS - turned 30 and now CITES - the convention regulating the international trade of wild plants and animals - is celebrating its 40th anniversary (eek, same age as me!). Today, a cake would be justified though, as CITES concluded its latest meeting in Bangkok, Thailand, on a positive note. They took some additional steps to curb illegal logging and finally restricted trade in key shark species. CITES is not in midlife crisis, it seems, but is fledging its teeth and showing the world it has some bite! Good on them. You may keep hearing about global environmental politics being dead. Days like today show that reports of the death of multilateralism are highly exaggerated.
CITES currently has 177 member governments and usually makes headlines because it deals with the trade of impressive looking elephants, rhinos and tigers (you may have heard about Thailand committing to end ivory trade at this year´s meeting. Leonardo di Caprio was pretty excited about that). But CITES deals with A LOT more than elephants: It has some 5000 animal species and 29 000 plant species on its overfull plate. It just about manages to deal with that workload because unlike many UN agreements it does not operate by consensus. If no common agreement can be found, parties put a decision to a vote. The shark decisions this year were saved by a thin majority – but saved they were. Even more importantly, CITES cannot just ask nicely that governments please do what they have committed to. It can punish governments that export more than CITES allows with trade sanctions that hurt.
In recent years, CITES had sadly not used these powers as much as the world needs and failed to make progress on key issues such as shark protection. Like other global agreements, it had been hijacked by short term economic interests – with governments acting as servants to big business. As a result several commercially valuable but threatened fish species - including sharks - had failed to be listed by previous CITES meetings in recent years. That is why the listing of five shark species and two manta rays (look here if you - like me - didn´t immediately know what those are) today is all the more sweet. This time, the forces of darkness lost – and CITES did what it was established for. It protected our global commons over private interests.
Cake is in order then. And a big shout out to our allies Pew and the cites4sharks.org coalition that worked tirelessly over these past years, months and days to ensure that these species escape the fate of the poor dodo …Gratitude, also, to those governments who stood up for sharks and the environment today. You know what, you should have days like this more often – serving the people, not the polluters.
But this is not a champagne moment. Whilst it is a great affirmation of multilateralism for the world’s governments to come together and decide to protect these extremely valuable marine species, the need to do so is truly alarming and sad. We need these CITES trade measures precisely because we are so spectacularly bad at managing our planetary home, driving more and more species to (the brink of) extinction. We need CITES strong teeth to protect sharks because otherwise we will not have any sharks left. And to be certain that sharks have a future, much more than today´s CITES decisions will be needed.
Millions of sharks are caught as part of global tuna fisheries every year. Their bodies are thrown overboard, but only after the fins are hacked off in order to end up in shark-fin soup. As a result, it is almost too late for some shark species, such as the oceanic white tips, that have gone through dramatic stock declines.
CITES trade controls will help monitor and limit the number of species traded, as permits are only granted if the trade of the species can be proven not to compromise the future survival of this species in the wild. These extra measures will significantly improve current scientific assessments on these species, which are currently weak or in some cases non-existent. However, as long as fisheries management and enforcement in tuna fisheries remain weak, massive loopholes will remain.
Following the positive steps taken at CITES today, it is now time for governments to improve ocean governance overall and to urgently ban shark finning. So called transshipments at sea for tuna vessels – which in practice catch the majority of sharks – also need to be banned. These transfers of products from one ship to another enables shark fins to be “laundered” as domestic trade, therefore escaping the scrutiny of CITES’ controls. Greenpeace, therefore, is campaigning for tuna brands, restaurants and retailers to not buy from vessels that engage in this practice.
CITES took a step forward today. That gives me – and all of us Rainbow Warriors - new energy for the next battles that we must also win if sharks, our oceans and our planet are to have a sustainable future.
Montag, 4. März 2013
The Rio+20 summit was nothing short of an epic failure. In the face of accelerating climate change and an ever-increasing use of resources, governments failed to deliver the transformational change needed to safeguard our planet’s future. There was no commitment made to an energy revolution based on renewables and energy efficiency, or to urgently end deforestation. Overall, the world got just words and greenwash, not the urgent action required to provide prosperity for all without exceeding our planet’s limits.
By contrast, the strengthening of UNEP has been held up as one of the summit's top achievements. It is indeed good news that the General Assembly finally agreed in December 2012 that UNEP will receive “secure, stable and increased financial resources from the regular budget of the UN“. It was about time to end a state of affairs where UNEP needed to pass around a ´begging bowl´ each year to secure vital funds for environmental protection. And it was also excellent news that both Brazil and China used the occasion of Rio+20 to pledge significant additional sums to strengthen UNEP. This was a recognition of the important role UNEP plays in emerging economies – and a long way from the old, and false, “environment vs. development“ dichotomy that overshadowed its founding 40 years ago.
UNEP rightly aims to deliver “the environment for development”, and has worked very hard since its creation to address and become relevant to the needs of developing countries. Strengthening it therefore contributes to global development efforts, rather than distracting from them: the environment is, after all, the essential base for all development. No doubt, this is one reason why African Heads of States and Governments want to see it turned into a fully fledged specialized agency.
Rio+20 should indeed have been the place where UNEP finally became a proper UN Environment Agency, as many, including the African and European Unions, demanded in the final plenary discussion session. Sustainable development governance needs a global authority for the environment, with greatly enhanced implementation, compliance and enforcement mechanisms. Yet governments failed to upgrade UNEP at the summit, another reason for saying its outcome was a failure. UNEP did at least progress on the pitiful status quo, but this progression was ruefully inadequate for a Heads of States summit.
Governments must now move urgently to complete the upgrading process started in Rio. They must put flesh on the bones of the General Assembly resolution and secure significant additional funds for UNEP´s urgent and important work. They must also not shy away from more controversial subjects, such as giving UNEP the tools needed to effectively monitor implementation of multilateral environmental agreements – and to impose sanctions on those breaking the rules. As long as UNEP can only plead, coach and capacity build, while the World Trade Organization can impose punitive tariff measures on those breaking their rules, there is an unacceptable inequality of power. Environmental governance, people and the environment will continue to lose out as a result.
Yet if sustainability is to thrive, we will need much more than a strengthening and upgrading of existing institutions. As well as UN Environment Agency with real powers, we need global rules that change power dynamics and investment incentives. Global rules on corporate accountability and liability, for example, are essential to ensure that damaging people and the environment is no longer a free for all, but has real costs. At the Johannesburg Earth Summit in 2002, governments acknowledged the need for global rules for global corporations. At Rio+20, however, they only called for slight – and voluntary – improvements in the way that corporations report their social and environmental impacts. A binding global instrument that ensures full liability for any social or environmental damage global corporations cause must therefore remain high on any governance reform list. Indeed, it will be fundamental test of whether governments want to set rules for people and the planet or abandon responsibility to a free market focussed on short-term gain.
In truth, sustainable development cannot become reality in a world in which short-term bets by financial markets are all-powerful. Strong controls of such markets are therefore an integral part of the needed reform of global governance. New fiscal instruments, such as a Financial Transaction Tax, need to be adopted to slow harmful speculation and deliver much needed finance for development and environmental protection. A complete social and environmental review of the global trade system is also long overdue.
There has been talk about strengthening UNEP for decades. Remarkably, over the last 40 years, UNEP has thrived in difficult circumstances. It's present ability to publish global environmental assessments, for example, is remarkable: even twenty years ago NGOs needed to invest a lot of resources to find and publicize the kind of information that UNEP´s Global Environment Outlook , for example, now summarizes so succinctly. We are grateful to UNEP for playing this role, thus allowing us to focus even more on frontline campaigning. But, we also know that time is running out – and that every new Outlook report only underscores the increasing urgency for action.
We must thus strive for a true transformation of global governance that puts people and planet at the centre of all decision making. As a vital first step, governments need to give real power to UNEP and upgrade it to specialized agency status as soon as possible. Our children can simply not afford any more time to be lost.
P.S: Here is a link to a piece in German I wrote on UNEP and international governance in 2012:
P.S: Here is a link to a piece in German I wrote on UNEP and international governance in 2012: