:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: 

Featured stories in this issue...

Canada Adopts the Precautionary Principle as Federal Policy
  Under the Federal Sustainable Development Act, which became law in
  Canada in late June, the government must establish a Federal
  Sustainable Development Strategy with "measurable" targets for
  protecting Canada's environment in accordance with the precautionary
  principle.
Late Lessons from Early Warnings for Nanotechnology
  With nanotechnology, we are in danger of repeating old, and
  potentially costly, mistakes.
Thinking Ahead
  "While gasoline is more than $4 a gallon and the price of home
  heating oil soars, the blueberries ripen -- and they're free. Small
  miracles, their existence in my life is due solely to the foresight of
  a man I never met."
Precaution for Cell Phones Urged
  One of the hallmarks of the cell phone health controversy
  has been the silence of the U.S. public health communities. No
  medical, consumer, environmental or labor group has called for
  precaution, or even for more research. Now that's changing.
Arroyo Criticized for Failure To Mention Toxic Pollution in Speech
  In the Philippines, "The threat of toxic chemical crisis is real
  and has to be addressed head-on with the health, safety and livelihood
  of the people and the protection of the environment in mind." -- Manny
  Colonzo
Granite Countertops Are Red Hot -- Perhaps Literally
  What the industry fails to point out is that most public experts
  agree there is no safe level of radiation -- all radiation has the
  potential to damage cells, and cumulative, lifetime exposure is often
  cited as a major cause of many cancers.
Untangling Fisheries Management
  Would the precautionary principle undermine sustainable fisheries
  management in New Zealand?

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

From: Straight.com, Jul. 29, 2008
[Printer-friendly version]

WHY ALL CANADIAN POLITICAL PARTIES ARE GETTING IN ON THE ACT

By David Suzuki and Faisal Moola

In a democracy, politicians from various parties debate to make their
vision the one that guides the country. The hope is that when the
debate concludes we end up going in a direction that has at least been
considered from many different angles.

Although one party's vision may win out over others, it may be
tempered or enhanced by arguments from the opposing parties. When all
sides agree unanimously on something, it's a sign that the issue is
serious enough to rise above the daily politicking.

Canada's Federal Sustainable Development Act, which became law in late
June, is a bold step toward ensuring that governments live up to their
environmental commitments. And it's one that all political parties got
together to support. It could revolutionize the way the government
deals with national environmental issues.

The David Suzuki Foundation has long advocated for such a law,
grounded in basic environmental science. The foundation helped draft
the original bill, which was based on our report "Sustainability
Within a Generation", written by environmental lawyer and professor
David Boyd. The bill was introduced in Parliament by retiring Liberal
MP John Godfrey. (Read our 2006 report on which the new law is based,
"Toward a National Sustainable Development Strategy for Canada".)

The law's wording puts the environment at the forefront: "The
Government of Canada accepts the basic principle that sustainable
development is based on an ecologically efficient use of natural,
social and economic resources and acknowledges the need to integrate
environmental, economic and social factors in the making of all
decisions by government."

I'm happy to finally see the government listing the environment right
up there with the economy! I felt the same in 1992 at the Earth Summit
in Rio with Agenda 21, a massive plan to get the world onto a
sustainable path. Unfortunately, a recession knocked out all that
goodwill. Let's hope this time for courageous political leadership in
implementing and enforcing the law.

Under the Act, the government must establish a Federal Sustainable
Development Strategy with "measurable" targets for protecting Canada's
environment in accordance with the precautionary principle. (The
principle states that "Where there are threats of serious or
irreversible damage, lack of scientific certainty shall not be used as
a reason for postponing cost-effective measures to prevent
environmental degradation.")

The government must also set out its strategy for meeting the targets,
identify the minister responsible for meeting each target, and allow
the Environment Commissioner to review the strategy and targets in
advance.

The Act, which applies to the policies and programs of all departments
as well as a number of federal agencies, requires the government to
produce a revised strategy every three years. And it establishes an
advisory council that includes the provinces, business, First Nations,
environmental groups, and labour.

That's the kind of cooperation we need if we are to solve our many
environmental problems. Of course, it doesn't let the government
completely off the hook. We still need more action on global warming,
including a stronger commitment to reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
And we need to ensure that the government takes the law seriously and
doesn't just pay it lip service, as it has with our signing of the
Kyoto Protocol.

At least it provides for more accountability and transparency -- and
includes incentives. For example, some bonuses for senior department
bureaucrats will be contingent on how well they meet environmental
goals.And the Environment Commissioner will audit and report to
Parliament annually on the government's performance in meeting the
environmental targets and the terms of its environmental strategy.

It may be some time before we see how effective the law is, but all
parties have at least recognized the need to work together on such
crucial issues. It's something the United Kingdom and Sweden have been
doing for years with their own sustainable development strategies. It
may take a while to catch up to them, but at least we have a plan to
get there.

Parliament often seems like a place for acrimonious argument and name-
calling rather than a venue for rational discussion, but in getting
together to draft, discuss, and support the passage of this important
law, politicians from across the Canadian political spectrum have
shown that there is a better way to find solutions.

Copyright 2008 Vancouver Free Press

Return to Table of Contents

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

From: Nanowerk, Jul. 22, 2008
[Printer-friendly version]

LATE LESSONS FROM EARLY WARNINGS FOR NANOTECHNOLOGY

By Michael Berger

One term you hear quite often in discussion about the potential risks
of nanotechnology is 'precautionary principle'.

This moral and political principle, as commonly defined, states that
if an action or policy might cause severe or irreversible harm to the
public or to the environment, in the absence of a scientific consensus
that harm would not ensue, the burden of proof falls on those who
would advocate taking the action. The principle aims to provide
guidance for protecting public health and the environment in the face
of uncertain risks, stating that the absence of full scientific
certainty shall not be used as a reason to postpone measures where
there is a risk of serious or irreversible harm to public health or
the environment.

In 2001, an expert panel commissioned by the European Environment
Agency (EEA) published a report, Late Lessons from Early Warnings:
The Precautionary Principle 1896-2000 (PDF download, 1.8 MB),
which explored 14 case studies, all of which demonstrated how not
heeding early warnings had led to a failure to protect human health
and the environment. This report's stated goal was to gather
"information on the hazards raised by human economic activities and
its use in taking action to protect better the environment and the
health of the species and ecosystems that are dependent on it". It
looked at controversial topics such as asbestos, Mad Cow Disease,
growth hormones, PCBs and radiation -- all of which demonstrated how
not heeding early warnings had led to a failure to protect human
health and the environment.

The expert group that compiled the EEA report identified 12 'late
lessons' on how to avoid past mistakes as new technologies are
developed.

"These lessons bear an uncanny resemblance to many of the concerns now
being raised about various forms of nanotechnology" Steffen Foss
Hansen tells Nanowerk. "A comparison between the EEA recommendations
and where we are with nanotechnology shows we are doing some things
right, but we are still in danger of repeating old, and potentially
costly, mistakes."

Hansen, a researcher in the Department of Environmental Engineering
and NanoDTU Environment at Technical University of Denmark (DTU),
together with Anders Baun from DTU, Andrew Maynard from the Project on
Emerging Nanotechnologies and Joel A. Tickner from the Department of
Community Health and Sustainability at the University of
Massachusetts, just published a commentary in Nature Nanotechnology in
which they explore these 12 lessons in the context of nanotechnology
("Late lessons from early warnings for nanotechnology").

These are the 12 lessons outlined by the EEA:

** Acknowledge and respond to ignorance, uncertainty and risk in
technology appraisal.

** Evaluate alternative options for meeting needs, and promote robust,
diverse and adaptable technologies.

** Provide long- term environmental and health monitoring and research
into early warnings.

** Ensure use of 'lay' knowledge, as well as specialist expertise.

** Identify and work to reduce scientific 'blind spots' and knowledge
gaps.

** Account fully for the assumptions and values of different social
groups.

** Identify and reduce interdisciplinary obstacles to learning.

** Maintain regulatory independence of interested parties while
retaining an inclusive approach to information and opinion gathering.

** Account for real-world conditions in regulatory appraisal.

** Identify and reduce institutional obstacles to learning and action.

** Systematically scrutinize claimed benefits and risks.

** Avoid 'paralysis by analysis' by acting to reduce potential harm
when there are reasonable grounds for concern.

Hansen, Baun, Maynard and Tickner argue that the question seems not to
be whether we have learnt the lessons -- as outlined by the EEA report
-- but whether we are applying them effectively enough to prevent
nanotechnology being one more future case study on how not to
introduce a new technology.

In their commentary, the scientists go through the 12 EEA lessons and,
where appropriate, apply them to the current issues, regulatory and
commercial activities, and scientific knowledge surrounding current
nanotechnology developments. Hansen summarizes his and his colleagues
concerns in three key points:

1) We seem to ignore some valuable lessons from the past and thus are
in danger of repeating old, and potentially costly, mistakes.

2) The global response to these warning signs has been patchy.

Although we have gotten the early warning signs, we risk putting off
future commercial and social benefits of nanotechnology by not
addressing the EHS- and regulatory issues fullheartedly and
efficiently

3) Many governments still call for more information as a substitute
for action.

In an ideal world, politicians and regulators would look to scientists
as the ultimate authorities when it comes to making regulatory
decisions about technology risks and science would be able to provide
useful and unambiguous answers (for the sake of this argument, let's
ignore for a moment the tremendous influence of industry lobbies and
the distorting effects of political ideology). Here, the article
provides a striking example of what it calls 'institutional ignorance'
-- instances where research throws up useful information which then is
ignored and overlooked by the regulators:

"They [the authors of the EEA report] cite cases where regulators made
inappropriate appraisals because of the blinkers imposed by their
specific disciplines -- such as the preoccupation of medical
clinicians with acute effects when dealing with radiation and
asbestos. There is a real danger of similar errors being made with
nanotechnology, which crosses many fields of expertise. One needs to
draw on physics, chemistry, computer sciences, health and
environmental sciences to understand nanomaterial properties and
risks. Consequently, a number of multidisciplinary centers for
nanoscience and nanomanufacturing have been established around the
world, but only a few of these address health, environmental, and
social aspects. Setting aside resources to create an infrastructure
that gets people working together across disciplines is critical."

Hansen and his co-authors argue that, "despite a good start", it seems
that we have become distracted because

** nanotechnology is being overseen by the same government
organizations that promote it;

** research strategies are not leading to clear answers to critical
questions;

** collaborations continue to be hampered by disciplinary and
institutional barriers; and

** stakeholders are not being fully engaged.

"In part this is attributable to bureaucratic inertia" says Hansen,
"but comments from some quarters -- such as 'risk research jeopardizes
innovation' or 'regulation is bad for business' -- only cloud the
waters when clarity of thought and action are needed."

The authors concede that the picture is not as bleak as it could be:

"Although progress towards developing sustainable nanotechnologies is
slow, we do seem to have learnt some new tricks: asking more critical
questions early on; developing collaborations that cross discipline,
department and international boundaries; beginning the process of
targeting research to developing relevant knowledge; engaging
stakeholders; and asking whether existing oversight mechanisms are fit
for purpose. But are we doing enough?"

Interestingly, they conclude their commentary with a cautionary and
feeble 'perhaps': "If we are to realize the commercial and social
benefits of nanotechnology without leaving a legacy of harm, and
prevent nanotechnology from becoming a lesson in what not to do for
future generations, perhaps it is time to go back to the classroom and
relearn those late lessons from early warnings."

Shouldn't it be a basic requirement for our regulators and science
community to heed lessons from the past?

Copyright 2008 Nanowerk LLC

Return to Table of Contents

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

From: The New York Times (pg. A20), Jul. 25, 2008
[Printer-friendly version]

THINKING AHEAD

By Maura J. Casey

It's a good year for blueberries.

Decades ago, a farmer planted more than a dozen bushes on a slope
behind our house, picking the spot where the soil would drain with a
deliberation that is beyond me.

This year may give the best harvest yet. The plants are thriving
despite our neglect. The wet spring gave the bushes the water we never
bother to provide.

Aside from pruning once a year and shoveling sawdust around the roots
to provide the acidic mulch the bushes crave, my husband and I have
watched, in awe, as the bushes have filled with berries.

Some of the blueberries are the size of marbles, others the size of
baby peas. They ripen at different times, from early July to late
August. I picked a quart in 20 minutes the other day, working slowly
to avoid loosening the hard, green berries that were not ready yet.

The ripe ones fell easily into my hands, their deep blue the color of
the sea in summer. Without any netting on the bushes, we know we will
share our harvest with the birds. But, so far, there's plenty for
everyone.

The berries provide contemplation along with breakfast. I cannot
imagine a much nicer way to begin a morning than in this quiet, dew-
laden part of our property, listening to the birds and the far off hum
of a tractor.

I rarely visit the bushes without thinking about kindness and
providing for generations to come.

While gasoline is more than $4 a gallon and the price of home heating
oil soars, the blueberries ripen -- and they're free. Small miracles,
their existence in my life is due solely to the foresight of a man I
never met.

It makes me wonder what I will leave for the next person. But for now,
the blueberries are tangible proof of the wisdom of thinking ahead.
They also taste good.

Return to Table of Contents

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

From: Microwave News, Jul. 23, 2008
[Printer-friendly version]

NEWS & COMMENT

By Louis Slesin

One of the hallmarks of the cell phone health controversy
has been the silence of the U.S. public health communities. No
medical, consumer, environmental or labor group has called for
precaution, or even for more research. The American Cancer Society,
for instance, has adopted a what-me-worry approach. Indeed, CTIA,
the industry lobby group, routinely refers press inquiries about
possible health impacts to the ACS. As for the Consumers Union, it
has decided not to get involved, preferring instead to advise its
members on how to pick the best phones and find the best service
contracts. Ronald Herberman, the director of the University of
Pittsburgh Cancer Institute, has taken a new course. In a memo to
the institute's faculty and staff released today -- and featured on
the front page of the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette -- Herberman offers
"practical advice" to limit exposures from cell phone radiation (see
also the accompanying "The Case for Precaution in the Use of Cell
Phones"). These recommendations include: "Do not allow children to
use a cell phone, except for emergencies." The Pittsburgh initiative
follows from the Appeal for Caution launched in France last month by
David Servan-Schreiber. Among the Americans who have signed the
appeal are David Carpenter, Devra Davis and Dan Wartenberg.

[See also, "Russian Roulette with Your Brain" and "Too Young for a
Cell Phone."]

Return to Table of Contents

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

From: GMANews.tv (Quezon City, Philippines), Jul. 28, 2008
[Printer-friendly version]

ARROYO CRITICIZED FOR FAILURE TO MENTION TOXIC POLLUTION IN SPEECH

Manila, Philippines -- A waste and pollution watchdog decried the
failure of President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo to present a much-sought
response to a looming crisis due to toxic chemical pollution.

"There is little question that her 'eco-friendly' gown failed to match
the exigency for resolute action to fight off the ticking toxic time
bomb owing to the deferred closure of the country's polluting dumps
and the delayed retrieval of endosulfan and other toxic shipments that
sank off Panay and Sibuyan Islands," Manny Calonzo, President of the
EcoWaste Coalition, said.

"We are totally dismayed by the lack of attention and urgency given to
this brewing environmental catastrophe in PGMA's report to the
nation," Calonzo added.

"The threat of toxic chemical crisis is real and has to be addressed
head-on with the health, safety and livelihood of the people and the
protection of the environment in mind," he stressed.

Prior to the SONA [state of the nation address] 2008, the EcoWaste
Coalition expressed its hope that the SONA will spell out essential
preventive strategies and plans, applying the precautionary principle,
that will protect our people from the adverse impacts of harmful
chemicals.

The wave of toxic chemical incidents that hit the country during the
past few years underscores the urgency of reviewing existing policies
and regulations on chemicals management, the group said.

Among the more publicized incidents include the mercury spills in
Makati and Paranaque schools, chemical leaks in Pasig, chemical
pollution in Marilao River and Laguna Lake, pesticide poisonings in
Davao and the sinking of highly toxic cargoes in Antique and Romblon.

The group said that the Philippines in 2006, along with other nations,
adopted the Strategic Approach for International Chemicals Management
(SAICM), which seeks to promote environmentally-sound and safer
alternatives to harmful chemicals.

Through SAICM, the world hopes "to achieve the sound management of
chemicals throughout their life-cycle so that, by 2020, chemicals are
used and produced in ways that lead to the minimization of significant
adverse effects on human health and the environment."

Copyright GMA Network Inc.

Return to Table of Contents

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

From: The Daily Green (New York, N.Y.), Jul. 30, 2008
[Printer-friendly version]

GRANITE COUNTERTOPS ARE RED HOT -- PERHAPS LITERALLY

Is the Radiation in Countertops Dangerous?

By Brian Clark Howard

Granite countertops are red-hot -- and not just because of their
soaring popularity and high resale value. It turns out that some
granite quarried for furnishings brings with it relatively high levels
of uranium, which is not only radioactive but releases radon gas as it
decays.

As the New York Times reports, sales of granite countertops have
exploded tenfold in the last decade, as has the number of different
styles now available. At the same time, a debate has been simmering
about how safe the attractive surfaces actually are.

There have been a number of reports of people observing above-
background levels of radiation coming from their kitchens, and the EPA
has received a growing number of complaints, according to the Times.
Officials have noted that some exotic and striated granite varieties
from Brazil and Namibia, in particular, have been most suspect.

The Marble Institute of America calls any worries about radiation from
granite countertops "ludicrous," saying that any possible levels are
insignificant compared with background radiation from space and the
Earth's crust, or even X-rays and smoke detectors. Yet one person told
the paper her house had radon levels of 100 picocuries per liter of
air because of her granite countertops, when the EPA recommends action
if radon levels exceed 4 picocuries per liter.

Typically, people receive 360 millirem of radiation from background
levels a year, while a "hot" granite countertop might add just a
fraction of a millirem per hour, and that's if you are very close to
it.

Still, the precautionary principle suggests considering other, and
often less pricey, alternatives. What the industry fails to point out
is that most public experts agree there is no safe level of radiation
-- all radiation has the potential to damage cells, and cumulative,
lifetime exposure is often cited as a major cause of many cancers, as
well as potentially aging itself. (So even though the fraction
contributed by countertops is likely very small, it may be worth
thinking about.)

Karl Z. Morgan, often called the founder of the field of health
physics, is famous for arguing that exposing DNA to any ionizing
radiation is like letting a "madman loose in a library." According
to the EPA, living in a home with 4 picocuries per liter of radon in
the air carries about the same cancer risk as smoking a half a pack of
cigarettes per day. While most granite countertops are not likely to
emit that much, it should give all those parents who tell their
children not to smoke a little something to think about.

A big point that this recent New York Times article failed to mention
is that granite quarrying, processing and shipment also carries a
sizable environmental footprint. Not only is the (obviously)
nonrenewable resource mined in destructive open pits, which can then
leach toxins into surface waters, but what is heavier than rocks to
ship around the planet? Granite is surprisingly easy to break, so a
lot can get wasted. Even when you get your countertop in place, it may
require frequent chemical treatments.

For many reasons, it does make sense to be different and forget
granite. Check out our pages of gorgeous and green alternative
countertops, from recycled glass, concrete and even paper; to
renewable bamboo; and repurposed materials. Not only can you get a
great look, but you'll have a nice conversation piece, and something
unique, to share with family and guests.

If you do have granite in your home and are thinking about getting it
tested for possible radiation, check with the American Association of
Radon Scientists and Technologists.

Return to Table of Contents

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

From: Stuff.co.nz (Wellington, New Zealand), Jul. 25, 2008
[Printer-friendly version]

UNTANGLING FISHERIES MANAGEMENT

New Zealand's fish stocks are one of the world's most envied food
sources and the quota-based fisheries management system is touted as a
leader in sustainable resource management.

With food prices around the world increasing, the oceans are being
turned to as the great provider in many cases. Throughout history,
responsibility and guardianship for the extensive resource has been
left to everyone and no-one, and with mass fishing technologies
allowing mammoth catches, fish stocks the world over have been
depleted by international fishing vessels and local fishing industries
focused on profits.

Many of the world's fishing grounds are in serious danger, and New
Zealand's quota management system (QMS) has managed to prevent the
same thing happening here. Yet at this year's Seafood Industry
Conference, director of United Nations food and agriculture
organisation fisheries division Grimur Valdimarsson touted self-
governance as the ideal fishery management method giving fishermen the
unfettered responsibility to police themselves, set their own limits
and manage the fisheries resource.

The argument is simple. If fishermen survive by catching fish, why
would they do anything other than catch sustainably? The reality is
anything but simple.

Now the Government is rushing new legislation through Parliament
before the new fishing year starts in October. The law change will
allow the minister to set limits without exhaustive evidence of fish
stock levels, a degree of information which is impossible to attain
for most of New Zealand's 629 quota-managed fish stocks. At the
conference Fisheries Minister Jim Anderton said the Fisheries
Amendment Act would remove the uncertainty that stemmed from potential
legal challenges. The changes will ensure that when there is too
little information about the health of a fish stock, the minister can
set catch limits under the mantle of the "precautionary principle",
building in a safety buffer to protect the fish population. That in
turn creates uncertainty for fishermen, who rely on their allocated
quota to earn a living.

Valdimarsson says only with complete control do fishermen have
certainty over their future and so will do what is necessary to
maintain it. It is not natural to undermine your livelihood, but when
uncertainty creates doubt over its longevity, urgency to reap the
harvest before it disappears becomes the primary concern, he explains.
"The fishermen say we have to get as much as we can in that (limited)
time."

This is the crux of the argument against a self-governance model in
fisheries, an argument which is backed by nearly every group outside
the commercial industry.

Of as much concern as the health of fish stocks are the rights of
fishermen who invest in their equipment, personnel and the tradeable
quota under which they can fish.

Disagreement over whether quota gives a property right or an
extraction right is often at the centre of debate over the level of
each year's total allowable commercial catch. The protection of the
value of that right which gives the owner the right to catch a per
centage of each season's permitted harvest is a strong motivation
behind the fierce opposition to outside infringements and restrictions
over commercial fishing interests. "This is your livelihood, this is
your company, this is your asset, this is the guarantee for your bank
loans," Valdimarrson says. "It is very important that the right
systems are established to recognise this."

Without protecting that, fishermen become "industrialists" with a
short-term focus on maximising output, he says, which is exactly what
the opponents of commercial fishing say they already are.

Green Party fisheries spokeswoman Metiria Turei says quota ownership
gives fishermen a "right of extraction" that should always be a lesser
right than that of all New Zealanders and the sustainability of the
fisheries resource. "Quite simply the industry does not own the fish
or the ocean," she says.

The idea that fishermen would sustainably fish in order to protect
their own livelihoods seemed logical, but historically it was not
true, Turei said.

Several individual fishing areas were already closed because of over-
exploitation and the industry's legal battles to overturn quota
decisions that curtailed fishing were more timely reminders of the
commercial fishing industry's impact and attitude to sustainability.

The Christchurch District Court is hearing a case against three
fishermen accused of dumping tonnes of excess hoki from a trawler
called Atria in a trip to the Chathams in May. Crown prosecutor Tim
Mackenzie said the case had been described as a "classic overfishing
scenario".

Turei welcomed the proposed law changes. "The default (at the moment)
is that the industry feels it has the right to extract until
information 'proves' it is unsustainable. When evidence is there they
challenge it in court."

She said the fishing industry's attitude to the plight of endangered
Hector's and Maui dolphins reflected an abuse of "not enough
information" scenarios. "No amount of research would satisfy the
(fishing) industry." Advocates for recreational fisheries and Maori
customary fishing rights think along similar lines. Ngapuhi chairman
Sonny Tau told the 2008 fishing conference that the quota management
system left a lot to be desired and without confidence in the
sustainability of fish stocks everyone who liked to catch fish would
be in trouble.

"It's no good having rights when you don't have the resource. It (the
fisheries) cannot sustain what is happening to it at the moment," he
said.

Recreational fishing council president Keith Ingram said the nature of
counting fish meant there would never be 100 per cent accurate
information that everyone agreed on. "And so you must err on the side
of caution."

While there were excellent examples of commercial fishing interests
acting sustainably, there were too many incidents the other way round,
Ingram said. A self-regulating environment was moving the wrong way to
stamp out unsustainable practice, he said. "I'm very sceptical about
leaving the fox in charge of the henhouse."

Seafood Industry Council chief executive Owen Symmans points to the
Southland CRA8 crayfish fishery as an example of successful self-
management.

Taking it upon themselves to cut the harvest CRA8 quota holders have
rebuilt the crayfish population to abundant levels, but several
fishermen had to sell up in the interim, unable to afford to ride out
the necessary limited fishing period. The problem with applying such
practice to other fisheries was a lack of information and trying to
get fishermen to agree, Symmans said. "The bigger the number of quota
owners the bigger the challenge in terms of bringing them together to
a common objective." But there was no reason it could not be done.
Symmans said incidents like the illegal dumping of tonnes of hoki from
the Atria were deplored by most fishermen, shown by the fact it was a
fisherman who dobbed them in. He said the resultant negative
stereotypes frustrated the industry's attempts to promote its pursuit
of sustainability strategies, such as mitigation of seabird deaths and
technological adaptions to benefit the environment.

Symmans said the sustainability principle would always be embodied in
the Fisheries Act with or without the minister brandishing his
judgment on specific fishing practices.

Symmans said amendments to sections within fishing legislation could
erode the value of quota, as the minister would be able to change
catch limits at will. But he said the simple dollar value of quota was
not the issue.

"It's not so much the value, it is about the ability for fisherman to
go fishing in a sustainable way. They built their businesses around
that. It's a bigger picture it's about the sustainability of the whole
industry."

Copyright Fairfax New Zealand Limited 2007

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.

  Editor:
  Peter Montague - peter@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.

:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::