Rachel's Precaution Reporter #134

"Foresight and Precaution, in the News and in the World"

Wednesday, March 19, 2008............Printer-friendly version
www.rachel.org -- To make a secure donation, click here.

Featured stories in this issue...

Letter from Scientists To the Gates and Rockefeller Foundations
  "The rush to 'feed Africa' should in no way excuse crop geneticists
  and agricultural development agencies from exercising the
  precautionary principle in evaluating their experiments; neither the
  Africans themselves nor the diverse African landscapes deserve to be
  recklessly experimented upon."
Diseases Like Mine Are a Growing Hazard
  "What can we do to lower the stakes for future generations? We
  could take a page from European environmental policy and its
  'precautionary principle' of preventing harm before it occurs."
Elk Sterilization Plan Now Unlikely
  "I'm really pleased with the consensus that sterilization is not
  consistent with the goal of maintaining ecological integrity and the
  precautionary principle," said Gaby Zezulka-Maillou.
Nanoparticles Already on EU Shelves Warn Green Groups
  A new report on nanotechnology products in food argues that the
  current regulations are insufficient and that a more precautionary
  approach is required.
Progress in Pacific Fisheries Protection
  "Anderton said he was pleased about broad agreement on a
  precautionary approach to fisheries management, whereby all parties
  consider long term sustainability of a fishery over short term fishing
Benin Renews Moratorium on GMOs
  "In keeping with the precautionary principle, Benin adopted on 2
  March 2002, a five-year moratorium on the import, marketing and use of
  GMOs or GMO by-products on its territory."
Hayleys Continuous Engagement with the Community
  In this puff piece, a Sri Lankan newspaper showcases a major Sri
  Lankan company's commitment to precaution and other modern principles
  of development. --RPR editors


From: Centre for Research on Globalization, Mar. 15, 2008
[Printer-friendly version]


A Green Revolution For Africa?

We have been prompted to send you this letter regarding the
scientific fallacies and myths underpinning the plans of the Alliance
for a Green Revolution for Africa (AGRA), because we are concerned
about its potential genetic, environmental, and economic impacts.


By its own accounts, AGRA is investing heavily in training "the next
generation of African crop scientists" to accept an agriculture based
on bioengineered crops and the economic structures associated with
them. It is already evident that Africa's political leaders are under
pressure to tacitly accept AGRA's initiatives and to cooperate with
them. Yet this agricultural development scheme, in many ways, follows
the same failed logic that flawed the Green Revolution of the 1960s.

Before AGRA begins full implementation of its potentially disruptive
agricultural initiative, the following actions must occur.

** A broad spectrum of scientists and science educators need to fully
review and challenge assumptions in AGRA' planned goals, motives and

** Universities need to commit to conducting applied research on
alternative methodologies that may offer Africa more environmentally
and economically sustainable agricultural systems.

** Public debate needs to offer a broader view of African hunger and
food security, while committing AGRA to greater transparency and


The agricultural development schemes proposed by AGRA follow much of
the same failed logic that flawed the Green Revolution in the 1960s,
but now the stakes are higher. Simply put, the AGRA initiative
proposes to rapidly develop, and immediately employ, an entire
"arsenal" of new seed varieties in order to attack the roots of hunger
and to guarantee greater food security to future Africans. Although
few scientists today believe that techno-scientific solutions alone
can save the world from hunger, the AGRA initiative reads as if the
solutions will come mainly from outside funds and technology.

The rush to "feed Africa" should in no way excuse crop geneticists and
agricultural development agencies from exercising the precautionary
principle in evaluating their experiments; neither the Africans
themselves nor the diverse African landscapes deserve to be recklessly
experimented upon.

The AGRA arsenal of "new" seeds, including genetically modified (GM)

** will be placed out into farmers' fields so quickly that they will
likely contaminate locally bred varieties and introgress with weeds
and wild relatives in the centers of origin of cultivated plants such
as sorghum;

** will be monitored haphazardly, given the industry's current record,
and with Africa's high levels of wild and domesticated biodiversity,
much more is at stake if contamination occurs;

** will set up conditions ripe for the rapid development of resistance
among pests and diseases to the chemicals genetically-engineered into
the crops, potentially increasing virulence and diminishing the
African potential for food security;

** will likely increase, not decrease, the use of pesticides and
herbicides, including those which disrupt relationships with
pollinators, soil microbes, soil quality and water quality.

The naivete of the AGRA initiative with regard to such potential
biological and ecological perils suggests that its managers have never
considered the numerous carefully documented case studies compiled
over the last five decades that both social and agricultural
scientists from around the world accept as valid critiques of such
na´ve strategies.

As ominous is AGRA's reliance on a "silver bullet approach" which
assumes that technological fixes alone will solve hunger problems. If
it continues on its present path, AGRA will sidestep social, ethical
and economic issues regarding the need for greater equity in land,
water and food distribution. As Nobel Prize winner, Amartya Sen, has
well documented, malnourishment is not a function of the absolute
amount of food available, but rather, of the inability of the poor to
access food. Further, African research institutions will be more
tightly linked to private global seed corporations in ways that
challenge current international treaties protecting farmers' rights
and benefit-sharing.

Africa's farmers have been developing their own locally adapted and
socially appropriate crops varieties, technologies and management
strategies for centuries. Unless their local knowledge is seen as a
critical resource (wealth) useful in resolving these problems, AGRA
will rely on a top-down outside-expert approach that is bound to fail.
The African Union also has model legislation for genetic resources,
which proposes farmers' rights, prior-informed consent, and benefit
sharing, all of which the AGRA initiative ignores.


We as scientists and members of the world community propose that the
Gates and Rockefeller teams delay their "big build-up" long enough to
listen to both agricultural and social scientists who have had at
least a quarter century of experience in documenting the perils of
this approach and in finding suitable alternatives based on social and
environmental justice and food sovereignty. We urge the financiers and
staff of AGRA to accept an invitation to an open forum , to be held in
2008, that addresses these issues head-on, rather than relegating them
to the margins.


A few examples of many questions, which need urgent public attention
and debate, are as follows:

1.) As scientists, we know that public sector plant and genetic
research is increasingly funded by biotech companies, and public
research agendas follow private imperatives. This growing private
dominance in the direction of research and in control of the world's
seeds is matched by increasingly stringent intellectual property

** Will new seed varieties developed by AGRA for Africa be patented or
will the industry's seed breeders honor farmers' rights?

** As farmers' varieties are used for parent material in breeding,
will you honor benefit sharing of profits back to the earlier breeders
of the parent materials? How will AGRA do this?

2.) Companies in the USA introducing herbicide-tolerant crops must
obtain special permission from the Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) to leave higher levels of herbicide residue on the crop, thus
increasing consumer exposure to agrochemicals (e.g., glyphosate,
glufosinate). Yet herbicide-tolerance remains the chief focus of
agricultural biotech research. The latest twist is dual herbicide-
tolerant crops (Pioneer soybeans tolerant to both glyphosate and ALS
inhibitors). What measures will be taken to protect consumers from
this increased agrochemical exposure?

3.) Genetic engineering has provided only four commercialized biotech
crops (soybeans, corn, cotton and canola) that feature one or both of
the following two traits: herbicide-tolerance (68% of world acreage);
insect-resistance (19%); and corn and cotton "stacked" with both
traits (13%). Innumerable field trials have been conducted to develop
biotech crops with other traits, from enhanced nutrition to drought-
resistance, with little or no success. Given this track record of
great expense with high failure, why offer high finance to this
particular technology, while under-funding alternatives?

4.) Research has demonstrated that genetically-modified pollen of some
crops can drift up to 24 kilometers from its source to contaminate
other varieties. What are the ways you propose to reduce genetic
contamination of local varieties, bred over centuries, from GM

We encourage scientists to direct other questions such as these to
AGRA's leaders, and request that AGRA formally respond to them on its
website and at open forums.

[Signatories can be found by following links here.]


For Reference:

Alliance for a Green Revolution for Africa (AGRA): www.agra.com

Recommendations for a "rainbow evolution" respecting Africa's diverse

African farmers' rights, priori-informed consent (PIC) and benefit-

African Union (AU). 2000. "AU Model Law on Rights of Local
Communities, Farmers, Breeders and Access."


Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are the sole
responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of
the Centre for Research on Globalization.

Copyright 2005-2007 GlobalResearch.ca

Return to Table of Contents


From: Washington Post (pg. B3), Mar. 16, 2008
[Printer-friendly version]


By Donna Jackson Nakazawa jacksondj@aol.com

Some weeks ago, my husband and I treated ourselves to a night at the
movies and caught a showing of "The Diving Bell and the Butterfly,"
the story of a successful French journalist who suffers a massive
stroke that changes his life.

As I watched the opening scene and the moment when the main character
realizes that he's trapped inside his own body, incapable of moving or
communicating with those around him, a shiver of recognition washed
over me. Two years ago, I also lay paralyzed in a hospital bed, unable
to use my arms or legs, to hug my young son or daughter, or to type a
word to meet an impending book deadline. Unlike the movie's
protagonist, however, I was immobilized by a type of disorder that
afflicts nearly 24 million Americans -- and counting.

Autoimmune diseases -- a group of about 100 conditions in which the
body's immune system turns on the body itself -- are reaching epidemic
proportions. In the past decade, 15 top medical journals have reported
rising rates of lupus, multiple sclerosis, scleroderma, Crohn's
disease, Addison's disease and polymyositis in industrialized
countries around the world. Over the past 40 years, rates of Type 1
diabetes have increased fivefold; in children 4 and under, it's
increasing 6 percent a year.

If I wanted to make a movie about my life, I'd pitch it to Hollywood
as "The Diving Bell and the Butterfly" meets "An Inconvenient Truth,"
the Academy Award-winning Al Gore documentary about global warming.
Rising levels of autoimmune disease may well prove to be the next
environmental disaster -- only in this case, the changes taking place
degree by degree are in the interior landscapes of our bodies.

My paralysis was caused by Guillain-Barre syndrome, an autoimmune
disease in which the nerves' myelin sheaths are destroyed by the
body's immune system, short-circuiting messages from the brain to the
muscles. I've been paralyzed twice in the past seven years. Each time,
months of rigorous physical therapy and treatment have enabled me to
walk again. But remnants of the disease -- and other autoimmune
conditions that have simultaneously ravaged my body -- have left me
with a pacemaker, little feeling in my hands and feet, legs that can't
ice skate or chase a child, a low white blood cell count and
gastrointestinal problems that can land me in the hospital in a blink.
Still, I consider myself one of the lucky ones. I know patients who
are far less fortunate.

I've spent the past two years interviewing leading experts at top
medical institutions nationwide to find out why cases of autoimmune
disease are skyrocketing. In recent years, many allergists and
immunologists have been attributing the rise to the "hygiene
hypothesis" -- the theory that our germ-free homes and childhood
vaccinations have eliminated challenges to our immune systems so that
they don't learn how to defend us properly when we're young. The
scientists I interviewed tended to discard the idea that this alone is
responsible. They agreed almost to a person that our day-to-day
exposure to environmental toxins -- through the air we breathe and the
chemicals we absorb through our skin -- is a major trigger of
autoimmune disease. "Exposures from our environment are a significant
contributor to today's rising rates," says Douglas Kerr, director of
the Johns Hopkins Transverse Myelitis Center and a top clinician at
the Johns Hopkins Multiple Sclerosis Center.

In 2003, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention sampled 2,500
people nationwide looking for the "body burden," or amount of
chemicals and pollutants each individual carried. They found traces of
all 116 chemicals and pollutants they tested for, including PCBs,
insecticides, dioxin, mercury, cadmium and benzene, all highly toxic
in higher doses. Then, in 2005, researchers from the Environmental
Working Group found something more alarming: a cocktail of 287
pollutants -- pesticides, dioxins, flame retardants -- in the fetal-
cord blood of 10 newborn infants from around the country.

Because most toxins are found in only trace amounts, it has been
difficult to gauge what effect they might be having on our health. Yet
studies of both lab animals and people provide disturbing insights
into how even low exposures can cause our immune systems to go
haywire. Mice exposed to pesticides at levels four times lower than
the level the Environmental Protection Agency sets as acceptable for
humans are more susceptible to getting lupus than control mice. Mice
that absorb low doses of trichloroethylene -- a chemical used in dry
cleaning, household paint thinners, glues and adhesives -- at levels
the EPA deems safe and equal to what a factory worker might encounter
today, quickly develop autoimmune hepatitis. And low doses of
perfluorooctanoic acid, a breakdown chemical of Teflon found in 96
percent of humans tested for it, impair rats' development of a proper
immune system.

Evidence from occupational studies is even more worrisome -- because
the "guinea pigs" are people. Last year, scientists from the National
Institutes of Health and the University of Washington released the
findings of a 14-year study of 300,000 death certificates in 26
states: Those who worked with pesticides, textiles, solvents, benzene,
asbestos and other compounds were significantly more likely to die
from an autoimmune disease than people who didn't. Other recent
studies show links between working with solvents, asbestos, PCBs and
vinyl chloride and a greater likelihood of developing autoimmune

Proving an absolute link between chemicals and autoimmune disorders in
humans won't be easy. Researchers can expose rodents to low doses of
chemicals and look for signs of autoimmune disease about six weeks to
three months later. But in humans, autoimmune diseases are long, slow-
brewing conditions that smolder for a decade or more before symptoms
appear. Moreover, Kerr says, it may be that a combination of exposures
rather than a single acute dose increases the risk of autoimmune

Meanwhile, we may all be unwitting participants in an uncontrolled
experiment as we wait to see whether rising levels of toxins and
pollutants in our blood are the cause of climbing rates of autoimmune
disease. Our children are the high-stakes pawns in this game: Pound
for pound, they eat more food and drink more water than adults, and
their immune systems are still developing and vulnerable.

What can we do to lower the stakes for future generations? We could
take a page from European environmental policy and its "precautionary
principle" of preventing harm before it occurs. Last June, the
European Union implemented legislation that requires companies to
develop safety data on 30,000 chemicals over the next decade and
places responsibility on the chemical industry to demonstrate the
safety of its products.

We also need to look beyond the "hygiene hypothesis" as the sole
explanation for the autoimmune epidemic and wake up to what
immunotoxicologists have been telling us for years: Our immune systems
may be less prepared because we're confronting fewer natural
pathogens, but we're also encountering an endless barrage of
artificial pathogens that are taxing our systems to the maximum.

Finally, we've waited too long for Congress to allocate funding to
finding out what toxic exposures can cause our immune systems to turn
against us. Though it estimates that 24 million Americans suffer from
autoimmunity, the NIH spent only $591.2 million on autoimmune disease
research in 2003, the last year for which figures are available,
compared with the $5 billion annual budget for cancer, which afflicts
9 million. The NIH budget for cardiovascular disease, affecting 22
million Americans, is four times that of autoimmune diseases.

My health right now is stable. There are challenges, to be sure -- I
type these words with braces on my arms. But my legs take me where I
need to go. Still, I live in fear of the day when that creeping
paralysis could steal my life away again. Only if we take concrete
steps now will the movie of my life and that of millions of other
Americans have a chance at a happy ending.

Donna Jackson Nakazawa is the author of "The Autoimmune Epidemic:
Bodies Gone Haywire in a World Out of Balance -- and the Cutting Edge
Science that Promises Hope."

Copyright 2008 The Washington Post Company

Return to Table of Contents


From: Rocky Mountain Outlook, Mar. 16, 2008
[Printer-friendly version]


A controversial experiment to sterilize 10 female elk in Banff to test
the effectiveness of birth control as a way of reducing the burgeoning
elk population around the townsite is likely off the table for this

By Cathy Ellis

A controversial experiment to sterilize 10 female elk in Banff
[Alberta, Canada] to test the effectiveness of birth control as a way
of reducing the burgeoning elk population around the townsite is
likely off the table for this year.

An advisory group to Parks Canada on Tuesday (March 11) recommended
against the fertility control experiment at this time, although the
superintendent of Banff National Park does have the final say.

The group also ruled out establishing off-leash dog areas outside town
boundaries aimed at keeping elk at bay, or erecting permanent fences
designed to keep elk out of certain areas, such as the recreation
grounds and Banff Springs golf course.

They indicated they would prefer to continue with an experiment next
winter of using semi-permeable wooden fences at five wildlife
underpasses to trap elk on the north side of the highway, where they
are more likely to be hunted by wolves and cougars.

Banff-based UTSB Research, which holds a seat on the committee and has
loudly voiced its opposition to using the birth control drug Gonacon,
was happy with the recommendations to come out of Tuesday's meeting.

"I'm really pleased with the consensus that sterilization is not
consistent with the goal of maintaining ecological integrity and the
precautionary principle," said Gaby Zezulka-Maillou, of UTSB Research
after the meeting.

"We felt introducing sterilization in a wild population, particularly
using a relatively untested product was not prudent and was costly.
The substance Gonacon has not been rigorously tested."

The birth control plan was part of the bigger picture to reduce the
growing number of elk around the Banff townsite to avoid a public
safety threat and widespread environmental damage.

Elk numbers have more than doubled in the last three years, with a
count last year estimating there to be at least 204 individuals in
areas around the Banff townsite. The animals are likely seeking a safe
haven from cougars and wolves.

Parks wants to avoid the situation of the 1980s and 1990s when
hundreds of urban elk moved into town, often seen strolling downtown,
holding people hostage in their homes as they feasted on lawns and
charging and attacking residents and tourists.

On an environmental level, the unusually high density of elk led to
severe ecological problems for other species such as birds and
beavers, as the ungulates overgrazed shrubs and aspen and made it
difficult for rejuvenation.

In reaching its recommendation to cancel the sterilization project of
10 elk cows, the montane advisory group considered the advantages and
disadvantages of fertility treatment.

It was told the advantages of sterilization would help prevent the
population from increasing, would allow animals to live without
contributing to a population increase and may only partially reduce
elk-human conflicts, as there would be no calves to defend.

On the downside, however, was the concern that fertility control does
not affect elk behaviour or distribution, nor does it address
ecological effects of high elk densities, such as elk grazing, and it
does not fully address concerns about elk-human conflicts.

As well, the drug Gonacon is relatively new and would prove costly.
From handling the elk, to injecting them with the drug by hand and
fitting them with a collar for monitoring purposes was estimated to
cost about $500.

Parks Canada officials say there is a chance the elk population could
be slightly down, especially considering wardens destroyed 20 high
habituated elk this winter, 13 more were killed on the train tracks
and the cow-calf ratio was unusually low at 16 per cent.

But they say they will continue monitoring the elk population around
town and try to get a better handle on the numbers during the spring
survey, scheduled for sometime in May.

They plan to bring the dog handler back this spring to chase elk out
of town during the calving season and do ongoing hazing of elk on the
Banff Springs golf course in the summer.

As well, they will also put up more signs to try and keep people,
including those walking their dogs off-leash in the area of the
airstrip, out of the Cascade corridor to encourage wary carnivores to
use the area.

They also plan to put the semi-permeable fences back up next winter.

The experiment to put the six-foot high wooden fences at five
underpasses was not deemed overly successful this year, as the elk
stampeded through one of the fences back to the south side of the
highway, where they spent much of the winter.

In addition, the area's two main wolf packs did not travel through the
Cascade wildlife corridor. There was, however, a known cougar kill in
the wildlife corridor and another in the Minnewanka Loop region.

Jesse Whittington, a wildlife specialist with Banff National Park,
said this winter's results did not quite prove themselves, but the
experiment can't be judged on one year alone and needs to be given
more time.

"There was lots of cougar activity this year, but the elk were
relatively safe from wolves. If the Cascade pack was travelling
through there, it might have been more effective," he said.

"Wolf use in there changes over time. In previous winters there have
been wolves, but not the last two winters."

Mike McIvor, president of the Bow Valley Naturalists and a member of
the advisory group, said it is important to give the

experiment of using the semi-permeable fences to keep elk on the north
side a chance to work.

"One of the things we all have to come to terms with is that the
natural world functions on a completely different timetable than the
frenzied immediate one that we're part of," he said.

"When we're trying to change things and trying to learn from what
we're doing, I think we have to demonstrate some patience and I think
it's completely wrong to expect instant results."

Susan Webb, a representative for the Town of Banff on the committee,
concurred, saying she agrees more time must be given to see if the
experiment of using the semi-permeable fences needs more time to get

She also said she was glad Parks was not moving ahead with

"I think of Banff National Park as a leader in the national parks in
Canada. It's a flagship park, and it's always wise to act on more
information than less information," said Webb.

"If some other national park in the United States is doing the
research with birth control, let's benefit from that. We should go
with proven science. It feels right not to experiment when we're not
sure what the results would be."

Return to Table of Contents


From: EUobserver, Mar. 17, 2008
[Printer-friendly version]


By Leigh Phillips

BRUSSELS -- Environmental groups are warning that advances in the
science of nanotechnology are racing ahead of public policy with
neither consumers, regulators nor scientists fully aware of the
toxicity of so-called nanoparticles.

They are further calling on the European Union to introduce mandatory
labelling on all products that contain them and develop strict safety
laws on the basis of health and environmental risk assessment.

A new report from Friends of the Earth groups in Brussels, Germany,
the US and Australia has identified at least 104 food and agricultural
products containing manufactured nanomaterials, or produced using
nanotechnology, which are already on sale in the European Union, and
warns that consumers are unknowingly ingesting them, despite concerns
about the toxicity risks of nanomaterials.

Helen Holder, coordinator of the Food and Farming campaign at Friends
of the Earth Europe said: "Europeans should not be exposed to
potentially toxic materials in their food and food packaging until
proper regulations are in place to ensure their safety."

"In the absence of proper safety regulations or mandatory labelling,
consumers are being left in the dark about the products they are
consuming and are unknowingly putting their health and the environment
at risk," she added.

The report, Out of the laboratory and on to our plates, which comes
out a few weeks in advance of an expected European Commission proposal
on the regulation of nanotechnology, argues that the current
regulations are insufficient and that a more precautionary approach is

Although not opposed to nanotechnology in principle, the groups are
calling on European policy-makers to adopt precautionary legislation
to manage potential risks caused by the use of the new materials.

Currently in Europe, there is as yet no nantechnology-specific
regulation or safety testing required before nanomaterials can be used
in food, packaging or agriculture. However, a forthcoming
communication from the commission will offer a review of European
legislation in relation to nanotechnologies.

Nanotechnology, the manipulation of matter at a scale of 100
nanometres or smaller -- the levels of atoms and molecules, is already
used in the manufacture of products such as nutritional supplements,
cling wrap and containers, antibacterial kitchenware, processed meats,
chocolate drinks, baby food and chemicals used in agriculture.

Nanotechnology engineers say that a new era of food free of the
negative effects of fatty or sugary foods is upon us, enthusing that
future generations of humanity will be able to eat any kind of food no
matter how rich or salty or high in cholesterol, thanks to the new
science of the very small.

In response to the report, the commission said that it is striving to
increase the awareness to food business operators of their legal
obligations, in regards to nanotechnologies. However, the commission
does feel that new legislation is necessary.

"The existing regulatory framework is already adequate to cover
potential risks of nanotechnology based products," said Nina
Papadoulaki, the spokesperson for health commissioner Androula
Vassiliou. Instead, "the European Commission is focusing its efforts
on the effective implementation of existing legislation [such as] risk
assessment, data and test requirements, and specific guidance."

The commission has also requested a scientific opinion from the
European Food Safety Authority on the risk arising from nanoscience
and nanotechnologies on food and feed safety.

In 2004, the UK's Royal Society -- the UK's academy of sciences -
issued a report commissioned by the British government on the subject
recommending that while nanotechnology may offer many benefits both
now and in the future, there was an immediate need for research to
address uncertainties about the health and environmental effects of
nanoparticles. It also recommended the introduction of regulation to
control exposure to nanoparticles.

A spokesperson for the Royal Society said: "A chemical in its nano
form can have different properties to the same chemical in its larger
form. It's these properties that make nanomaterials so exciting and
are what manufacturers are exploiting for their products.

"However, to ensure that we properly protect people from any negative
effects, it is crucial that all relevant regulatory bodies keep
existing regulations under review. This is particularly important as
there are already many products containing nanomaterials on the
shelves, and many more expected in the future."

Copyright 2008 EUobserver

Return to Table of Contents


From: tvnz.co.nz, Mar. 17, 2008
[Printer-friendly version]


New Zealand has continued to negotiate for a sustainable management
regime for fisheries in the South Pacific in a meeting at Ecuador, and
Fisheries Minister Jim Anderton believes progress has been made.

Participants from over 30 countries around the world met in Guayaquil,
Equador, for the fifth round of negotiations to establish a South
Pacific Regional Fisheries Management Organisation (SPRFMO) to manage
non-highly migratory fisheries on the high seas.

That includes fisheries such as orange roughy, which some estimate
face a high likelihood of extinction in a matter of years if nothing
is done to conserve the existing population.

Anderton said the South Pacific was one of the last high seas
fisheries that is not being managed.

"It is a chance for New Zealand and like-minded countries to help
establish a sustainable management regime on our back door-step,
similar to the management we have in our own Exclusive Economic
Zones." he said in a statement.

The current meeting aims to advance negotiations on a Convention text
that the Organisation would conduct themselves by.

Anderton said he was pleased about broad agreement on a precautionary
approach to fisheries management, whereby all parties consider long
term sustainability of a fishery over short term fishing

The principle, a foundation of much international environmental law,
asks parties to consider sustainable practice even where the data is
uncertain or inconclusive.

Anderton says New Zealand has already begun to implement interim
measures, but progress by other parties has been disappointing.

"We are very concerned over the rapid build up of vessels from distant
fishing nations targeting the jack mackerel stock that straddles
Chile's waters, which is the largest fishery in the South Pacific."

Data being submitted from countries on catchment sizes and number of
vessels will be used to get a broad picture of fishery sizes
throughout the South Pacific, hopefully allowing debate on how to
ensure an overall sustainable approach.

Return to Table of Contents


From: Afriquenligne, Mar. 17, 2008
[Printer-friendly version]


Cotonou, Benin -- Benin has decided to renew for period of five
years, the moratorium on the import, marketing and use of Genetically
Modified Organisms (GMOs) and GMO by-products on its territory,
official sources told the PANA [Panafrican News Agency] here Monday.

The renewal of the moratorium, introduced in 2002, was based on the
lack of a legal, technical and scientific framework on the threat of
transgenic products from some member states of the West African
Economic and Monetary Union (UEMOA) invading the sub-regional market.

In keeping with the precautionary principle, Benin adopted on 2 March
2002, a five-year moratorium on the import, marketing and use of GMOs
or GMO by-products on its territory.

There is no act of law in Benin governing the sector and the country
lacks scientific skills and equipment for the detection, monitoring
and control of GMOs.

Copyright 2008 Afrique-Actualite

Return to Table of Contents


From: Sunday Times Online (Colombo, Sri Lanka), Mar. 16, 2008
[Printer-friendly version]


Sri Lankan conglomerate, Hayleys, in its continuous community
engagement, has actively participated in the restoration of three
ancient reservoirs in the hinterland of the country to encourage and
renew traditional practices of the past, an international audience was
told earlier this month.

This came in a presentation by Hayleys Chairman N. G. Wickremeratne to
the inaugural Working Conference of the CEO Water Mandate of the
United Nations Global Compact (UNGC). The meeting was held in New
York earlier this month and Wickremeratne was represented by Hayleys
Board Member Arjun Senaratna.

Hayleys was among the first global corporate entities and the only Sri
Lankan company to endorse the CEO Water Mandate, a call to action and
a strategic framework to make sustainable water resources management a
priority for businesses world-wide.

Excerpts of the presentation:

Water has played an unparalleled role in Sri Lanka's civilization for
over 2500 years. The ancient Kings of the country built thousands of
reservoirs and these along with the temples formed the Village, the
basic societal unit of the country. These reservoirs, some dating back
as early as the 4th century BC, were designed for rain water
harvesting and flood protection and were used for irrigation and
domestic needs. Uniquely too these systems were maintained by the
local communities as a common resource.

The Kings of Sri Lanka did not build palaces -- they left a legacy of
water resources. This unique hydraulic civilization not only supoorted
man in his pursuit of agriculture but also the magnificent flora and
fauna of the country, and do so even today.

There is probably no other corporation in Sri Lanka so closely
identified with the ethos of the country as Hayleys. It has played a
defining role in the transformation of the country to a modern economy
but its significant point of differentiation is that while doing so,
it projects and protects the core values of the country.

In all of its business activities Hayleys has consistently displayed a
commitment to sustainable development embodying the principles
enunciated by the Global Compact even before they were proclaimed in
2000 and well before the Group became a signatory to the UNGC in

Why and How

The emerging problem in terms of water and climate change in Sri Lanka
is a very pressing reality. Water is important for the country for
Agriculture, Industry and Hydro power. These are all areas in which
Hayleys is actively involved in and we see a compelling rationale in
supporting the principles of the UNGC through the Water Mandate. We
abide by three principles relating to the environment in the following

** UNGC Principle 7 advocates support for a precautionary approach to
environmental challenges.

** Our large manufacturing facilities are significant users of water.
The Group consumes nearly 8500 c/m of water per day. All large water
users of the Group are ISO 14000 accredited and continuously seek to
reduce the impact of water use and contamination, going beyond
environmental regulations.

** Hayleys manages nearly 20,000 hectares of Tea, Rubber and Forest
lands in the country.

The employment of sustainable agricultural practices and prevention of
pesticide residues entering water courses is a major priority. Our
rubber plantations have been certified by the Forest Stewardship
Council, UK as well managed forests.

UNGC Principle No: 8 calls for initiatives for greater environmental
responsibility. Hayleys is a leading supplier of crop protection
chemicals and fertilizers. It reaches both the organised plantation
sector and one-in-four rural farmers. It provides them with training
on the correct and safe use of chemicals and advice to prevent excess
water extraction and contamination of water sources.

Principle 9 of the UNGC advocates development and diffusion of
environmentally friendly technologies. The following are examples of
what we do -- Hayleys manufactures superior Activated Carbon used
extensively for water and air purification applications; the Group has
developed Geo-Textile blankets from woven bio-degradable coconut
fibers, which are used for soil stabilization and erosion control;
Coconut fibre slabs are used for 'floating islands' from which water
plants are induced to extract nitrates and other contaminants from
water bodies.

We believe these activities are very well aligned to the focus areas
of the CEO Water Mandate covering especially Direct Operations, Supply
Chain and Water Shed Management. Sustainable use of water is not new
to Sri Lanka or for Hayleys.

However countries and businesses such as ours cannot survive following
these best practices unless there is meaningful recognition,
endorsement and economic reward for their practice.

Without this, practices in environmental sustainability would rapidly
become unsustainable in the harsh light of the global marketplace.

Copyright 2008 Wijeya Newspapers Ltd. Colombo. Sri Lanka

Return to Table of Contents


  Rachel's Precaution Reporter offers news, views and practical
  examples of the Precautionary Principle, or Foresight Principle, in
  action. The Precautionary Principle is a modern way of making
  decisions, to minimize harm. Rachel's Precaution Reporter tries to
  answer such questions as, Why do we need the precautionary
  principle? Who is using precaution? Who is opposing precaution?

  We often include attacks on the precautionary principle because we  
  believe it is essential for advocates of precaution to know what
  their adversaries are saying, just as abolitionists in 1830 needed
  to know the arguments used by slaveholders.

  Rachel's Precaution Reporter is published as often as necessary to
  provide readers with up-to-date coverage of the subject.

  As you come across stories that illustrate the precautionary 
  principle -- or the need for the precautionary principle -- 
  please Email them to us at rpr@rachel.org.

  Peter Montague - peter@rachel.org
  Tim Montague   -   tim@rachel.org

  To start your own free Email subscription to Rachel's Precaution
  Reporter send any Email to one of these addresses:

  Full HTML edition: rpr-subscribe@pplist.net
  Table of Contents (TOC) edition: rpr-toc-subscribe@pplist.net

  In response, you will receive an Email asking you to confirm that
  you want to subscribe.

  To unsubscribe, send any email to rpr-unsubscribe@pplist.net
  or to rpr-toc-unsubscribe@pplist.net, as appropriate.

Environmental Research Foundation
P.O. Box 160, New Brunswick, N.J. 08903