Project
ShutterstockTowards an end to subsidies that promote overfishing
Overfishing is one of the main problems for the health of our ocean. And the provision of negative subsidies to the fishing sector is one of the fundamental causes of overfishing.
Fishing subsidies are financial contributions, direct or indirect, that public entities grant to the industry.
Depending on their impacts, they can be beneficial when they promote the growth of fish stocks through conservation and fishery resource management tools. And they are considered negative or detrimental when they promote overfishing with support for, for example, increasing the catch capacity of a fishing fleet.
It is estimated that every year, governments spend approximately 22 billion dollars in negative subsidies to compensate costs for fuel, fishing gear and vessel improvements, among others.
Recent data show that, as a result of this support, 63% of fish stocks worldwide must be rebuilt and 34% are fished at "biologically unsustainable" levels.
Although negotiations on fisheries subsidies, within the framework of the World Trade Organization, officially began in 2001, it was not until the 2017 WTO Ministerial Conference that countries committed to taking action to reach an agreement.
This finally happened in June 2022, when member countries of the World Trade Organization reached, after more than two decades, a binding agreement to curb some harmful fisheries subsidies. It represents a fundamental step toward achieving the effective management of our fisheries resources, as well as toward ensuring global food security and the livelihoods of coastal communities.
The agreement reached at the 12th WTO Ministerial Conference provides for the creation of a global framework to reduce subsidies for illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing; subsidies for fishing overexploited stocks; and subsidies for vessels fishing on the unregulated high seas. It also includes measures aimed at greater transparency and accountability in the way governments support their fisheries sector.
The countries agreed to continue negotiating rules to curb other harmful subsidies, such as those that promote fishing in other countries' waters, overfishing and the overcapacity of a fleet to catch more fish than is sustainable.
If we want to have abundant and healthy fishery resources, it is time to change the way we have conceived fishing until now. We must focus our efforts on creating models of fishery use that allow for long-term conservation.
Partners:
Health Risks in La Oroya are Higher Than Expected: Lead and Lead Compounds Classified as Carcinogens (Spanish text)
PARA PUBLICACIÓN INMEDIATA: 8 de febrero de 2005 Contactos: Carlos Chirinos, SPDA, +51-4211394, [email protected] Eliana Ames, LABOR, +51-2616515, [email protected] Anna Cederstav, AIDA, +1-510-550-6748 (EEUU) RIESGO DE SALUD EN LA OROYA ES MAYOR DE LO PENSADO: PLOMO Y COMPUESTOS DE PLOMO CLASIFICADOS COMO CANCERÍGENOS. LIMA, PERÚ – El 31 de enero de 2005, el Departamento de Salud y Servicios Humanos de los Estados Unidos publicó el Informe Semestral sobre Cancerígenos, el cual incluye por primera vez el plomo y todos los compuestos con contenido de plomo como sustancias que probablemente causan cáncer en seres humanos. Este informe enlista las sustancias cancerígenas en dos categorías, aquellas “conocidas como cancerígenas para el hombre,”y aquellas “con probabilidad razonable de ser un cancerígeno para el hombre.”Debe resaltarse en este Informe la inclusión del plomo y de los compuestos del plomo en la categoría de “probabilidad razonable de ser un cancerígeno humano”. Esta nueva clasificación de plomo y todos los compuestos de plomo se ha basado en datos epidemiológicos de estudios en humanos y en evidencia sustancial de estudios en animales experimentales. Por ejemplo, se demostró que la exposición al plomo aumenta la presencia de tumores en los riñones, el cerebro, el sistema hematopoyético y los pulmones en ratas y/o ratones (IARC 1980, 1987). Todavía no se entienden completamente los mecanismos por los que el plomo causa cáncer, pero los estudios realizados en seres humanos que estuvieron expuestos por su ocupación al plomo, han sugerido que el plomo daña los cromosomas o el ADN, lo cual puede causar cáncer (ATSDR 1999, NTP 2003). El plomo es liberado en el ambiente predominantemente por procesos industriales. Dentro de estos procesos, las fundiciones de plomo por sí solas son actualmente la fuente principal de las emisiones de este metal pesado, contabilizando más del 78% de todas emisiones de plomo en 2001 en los Estados Unidos (EPA 2003). Además de incluir el plomo y sus compuestos en la clasificación de sustancias con “probabilidad razonable de ser un cancerígeno para el hombre”, en noviembre de 2004 la Agencia de Protección Ambiental (EPA) de los Estados Unidos anunció el inicio de un proceso de recopilación de información necesaria para revisar los estándares de calidad de aire respecto del plomo. El estándar actual de los Estados Unidos de 1.5 ug/m3 como promedio anual, el que sirvió de base a los estándares fijados para el Perú en 2003, no ha sido revisado en más de veinte años, por lo que no toma en cuenta la información científica más reciente y esta alejado de los estándares internacionales. De hecho, el estándar de la Organización Mundial de la Salud (OMS) es de 0.5 microgramos de plomo por metro cúbico en el aire, siendo hasta tres veces más estricto que el de los Estados Unidos. Estas ultimas dos acciones del gobierno de los Estados Unidos evidencian la rigurosidad necesaria con la que se viene asumiendo el tema del plomo, debido al alto riesgo que este conlleva para la salud humana. En contraste, en el caso peruano resulta particularmente preocupante la situación de ciudades como La Oroya y otras poblaciones ubicadas en áreas de influencia minero metalúrgicas en donde se producen concentrados de plomo, por las altas concentraciones de este contaminante, que claramente representan un riesgo para las personas. No hay duda entonces de la urgencia de implementar medidas eficientes para evitar el aumento del riesgo para la salud humana, incluso la posibilidad de sufrir cáncer, que enfrentan las personas que viven y trabajan en estos lugares.
Read moreU.S. Congress Conditions: Spraying in National Parks
Astrid Puentes, AIDA (510) 550-6753 [email protected] Gastón Chillier, WOLA (202) 797-2171 [email protected] US CONGRESS CONDITIONS ANTI-NARCOTICS SPRAYING IN COLOMBIAN NATIONAL PARKS OAKLAND, CA, DECEMBER 10, 2003 — For the first time, the US Congress has officially acknowledged that US funds for the “Plan Colombia” drug eradication program may be used to spray coca and poppy crops located in Colombian national parks and other natural protected areas. However, the Congress conditioned funding for such spraying on compliance with Colombian law and a determination by the Department of State that “there are no effective alternatives to reduce drug cultivation in these areas.” The decision is part of the 2004 appropriations bill for the Andean Counterdrug Initiative, a key element of the US “War on Drugs” in Bolivia, Colombia, Ecuador, and Peru. The authors of the bill that will be voted in January of 2004, agreed that while there is concern that coca growers are moving into Colombia’s national parks, aerial fumigation in the parks and reserves should be used only as a last resort. Instead, Congress favors alternatives such as manual eradication, training and equipping the police to protect the parks, and relocating families that have moved into these areas. “The policy of using aerial spraying to eradicate illicit crops poses significant threats to human health and the environment,” says Astrid Puentes, Legal Director for AIDA. She adds that “The conditions imposed by the US Congress are a step in the right direction, though to truly protect the environment in Colombia we must ensure that the eradication forces begin complying with Colombian laws and stop trying to weaken them.” Each year, Congress has conditioned the State Department’s use of funds for the spraying program on actions intended to help protect human rights and the environment. As in previous years, the Congress required that in 2004 the State Department certify that: the use of these herbicides in Colombia does not pose unreasonable risks or adverse effects to humans or the environment; the eradication program complies with the Colombian Environmental Management Plan; and the governments investigate and fairly compensate meritorious complaints about health harms and the destruction of legal crops. For the first time, however, the Congress also referred to and conditioned the spraying of national parks and reserves. In 2001, Colombia’s environmental authorities specifically excluded national parks and natural reserves from the regions that are subject to aerial herbicide spraying. Instead, they ordered that manual or mechanical means be used to destroy coca and poppy crops in these areas. The authorities also prohibited the spraying of significant buffer areas surrounding the parks to avoid harms from spray drift or accidental spraying. These special protections are in line with the Colombian Constitution and environmental laws that establish special protections for these environmentally sensitive areas. Therefore, spraying in natural parks and natural reserves in Colombia is clearly illegal. Nevertheless, the Colombian National Anti-narcotics Agency that collaborates closely with the US Department of State has sprayed in Colombia’s national parks. Moreover, in June 2003, the Colombian National Council on Narcotics attempted to legalize such spraying. This action is being contested in Colombian courts for violating the Constitution and other laws. According to Anna Cederstav, a scientist with AIDA, “A policy that creates no viable economic alternatives for farmers simply perpetuates the cycle of farmers cutting forests to plant coca and the government spraying herbicides to destroy the fields. The US and Colombian governments should make a good-faith effort and give manual eradication and alternative development projects a chance to work, instead of relying on massive aerial spraying and military campaigns to destroy the crops.” She adds that “As the US Congress has now recognized for the National Parks, spraying should be the last recourse, but unfortunately it is the only one that has been systematically implemented until now.” The extensive spraying of potent herbicides could have devastating environmental impacts in the National Parks of Colombia, one of the most biodiverse nations on the planet. Important regions of the Amazon basin, the Tropical Andes, and the Chocó coastal rainforest are all located in Colombia. These vital ecosystems are being destroyed not only by illicit drug cultivation, but now also by the eradication program.
Read more
Colombian Court Orders the Suspension of Plan Colombia Spraying
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: June 26, 2003 CITING RISK TO HUMAN HEALTH AND THE ENVIRONMENT, COLOMBIAN COURT ORDERS THE SUSPENSION OF THE US-FINANCED SPRAYING OF COCA AND POPPY CROPS OAKLAND, CA/BOGOTA, COLOMBIA – A recent decision by the Superior Administrative Court of Cundinamarca, Colombia, (released to the public on June 25) declared that the aerial spraying with herbicides to eradicate coca and poppy crops violates the Colombian constitutional rights to a healthy environment, security and public health. As a result, the court ordered that the aerial spraying of potent glyphosate herbicides be suspended until the government complies with the Environmental Management Plan for the eradication program, and conducts a series of required studies intended to protect human health and the environment. This verdict supplements earlier declarations by the Colombian Constitutional Court and the State Council, which respectively ordered the suspension of spraying in indigenous territories and full compliance with the Environmental Management Plan approved by the Ministry of Environment. According to Yamile Salinas of the Colombian Ombudsman’s Office, “This ruling recognizes the potential risks that the herbicide and the manner in which it is being applied pose to human health and the environment in Colombia,” She added that, “The application of the precautionary principle is of singular importance because the Court affirms that the significant and potentially irreparable risk posed by the spraying is reason enough to suspend the fumigation program.” “The US Congress has required the State Department to evaluate environmental and health impacts of Plan Colombia. This decision by a court in Colombia must be taken into account by the US State Department,” said Anna Cederstav, staff scientist with Earthjustice and AIDA. “In light of the evidence presented and the court’s clear decision on this matter, the Department of State cannot certify to Congress that the herbicide mixture, in the manner it is being used, poses no unreasonable risks or adverse effects to humans or the environment, or that the herbicide is being used in compliance with the Environmental Management Plan for the program.” She concluded that, “It would be highly irresponsible for the United States to continue the eradication program in contravention of the Colombian court order to suspend the spraying until appropriate public health and environmental protections are in place.” “This court order formally adopts many of the requirements for environmental and human protection that the Colombian Ombudsman and Comptroller General, along with both national and international non-government organizations, have been demanding for years,” said Yamile Salinas. “This decision is a victory for both public health and the environment of Colombia.” Press Contacts: Anna Cederstav, Staff Scientist with Earthjustice and AIDA, (Oakland, CA) tel. 510-550-6700 Yamile Salinas, Colombian Ombudsman’s Office, (Bogotá, Colombia) tel. 571-314-7300 Ext. 2324
Read more