EU fisheries fund encourages overfishing - Courtesy of Birdlife
December 2012. On Monday 12 December, the EU Court of Auditors published a report damning costly failures to eliminate overfishing in Europe.
The report found that the multi-billion euro European Fisheries Fund designed to balance fishing activities at sustainable levels is actually doing the reverse. Loopholes mean that fleet owners are receiving subsidies to increase the capacity and fishing power of their vessels, adding to fleet overcapacity. A small fraction of the money available for scrapping is being used as intended, with most being spent on vessels that are old or no longer active.
Fundamental flaws
The court did not stop at criticising the misspending of taxpayers' money, but highlighted fundamental flaws in the existing fleet adjustment rules.
75% of European fish stocks are overfished
The report warns that fleet overcapacity is driving the depletion of fish stocks, threatening marine life and the viability of fishing sector and coastal communities. The result is that three out of four European fish stocks are overfished.
Birdlife Europe, Greenpeace, OCEAN2012, Seas At Risk and WWF are urging the European Parliament and Council of Ministers to follow the court's recommendations. The report shows that the Common Fisheries Policy (CFP) reform will be meaningless unless measures are based on a full assessment of the fishing capacity coupled with deadlines for fleet reductions, the groups argue.
Reforms not fit for purpose
The European Commission's reform proposals are not up to the task: European Maritime & Fisheries Fund (replacing the European Fisheries Fund) - Unless safeguards are put in place, there is little evidence that subsidies will stop fuelling overcapacity let alone reverse it. For instance, the recent Commission proposal does not require member states to assess the balance between fishing capacity and stocks before receiving modernisation funds.
CFP reform - Clear timelines and targets for fleet reductions should be introduced in the revised proposals. Moreover, the text should be amended to create a wider range of options for allocating fishing rights, introducing preferential access for those that fish in the most sustainable and responsible way.
Fisheries ministers will meet on 16 December to set fishing quotas for 2012. These should be set in line with the scientific advice, and consistent with the goal to recover fish stocks to above levels that can produce maximum sustainable yields by 2015, the groups say.
http://www.wildlifeextra.com/go/news/eu-overfishing.html
Showing posts with label EU. Show all posts
Showing posts with label EU. Show all posts
Sunday, December 18, 2011
Friday, November 25, 2011
EU proposes outright ban on shark finning
THE EU has finally proposed an outright ban on shark finning, in a move welcomed by European Parliament fisheries committee Vice-President Struan Stevenson MEP, a longstanding campaigner against the practice.
Shark finning is the practice where fishermen cut the valuable fins from a shark and throw the rest of the shark back in the water - often while still alive. The practice has officially been illegal since 2003 but a loophole in the law only requires the weight of the fins caught to be around five percent of the total shark catch. As the average fin-to-shark ratio is around two percent, this effectively means that at least half of the sharks that are finned need not be landed.
Now EU fisheries commissioner Maria Damanaki is proposing a complete ban on 'finning' on all EU vessels around the world.
Mr Stevenson fought off Spanish efforts in 2006 to increase the fin to fish ratio to 6.5 percent, and he has long campaigned for a complete end to the barbaric practice so that every shark caught must be landed, rather than thrown back to die a lingering and agonising death.
Mr Stevenson, Conservative MEP for Scotland, said: “Sharks may have an image problem but they are crucial to the ocean's ecosystem. The practice of shark finning is both detrimental to our marine environment and unacceptably cruel to the shark.
"Sharks that are finned often list around on the ocean bed until they are attacked or they starve to death. Many people may not love sharks but they all see the cruelty in leaving a creature to die a painful and slow death.
"The shark finning trade is extremely lucrative and the punishments are miniscule compared to the rewards. EU law and monitoring need to change so that European fishermen are harshly punished for enacting cruelty and threatening some shark species.
"When these proposals come before MEPs I have no doubt that a few countries will seek to water them down. However, we will push for a rigorous ban.
"We need a ban on finning that enables fishermen to catch sharks in a way that puts conservation and humane treatment before making a quick buck."
Oceana, the international marine conservation organisation, has commended the European Commission on its proposal to amend the EU ban on shark finning.
Ricardo Aguilar, Research Director for Oceana in Europe said: “By opting for a fins-attached approach, the European Commission has heeded the advice of experts worldwide: landing sharks with their fins still naturally attached is the only possible way to guarantee that finning does not occur. The current ‘ban’ has been of little value for shark management and conservation, because loopholes make it impossible to even detect whether finning occurs. Furthermore, if all sharks must be landed with their fins attached, it will be much easier to identify the species caught, and therefore, to gather critical data about the status of shark populations.”
“A stronger ban on shark finning will bring significant benefits for shark fisheries management and conservation, not only in Europe, but in all of the oceans where European vessels are catching sharks,” added Dr. Allison Perry, marine wildlife scientist with Oceana in Europe. “We trust that the European Parliament and Council will support the Commission’s proposal, and that this positive step will be followed by action on other important measures that Europe has committed to under its Plan of Action for the Conservation and Management of Sharks.”
The EU includes some of the world’s major shark fishing nations – Spain, France, Portugal, and the UK. The largest EU shark fisheries occur on the high seas, where Spanish and Portuguese pelagic longliners that historically targeted mainly tuna and swordfish now increasingly catch sharks, particularly oceanic species such as blue sharks (Prionace glauca) and shortfin makos (Isurus oxyrinchus). More than half of large oceanic shark species are currently considered threatened.
http://www.fishnewseu.com/latest-news/scottish/7116-eu-proposes-outright-ban-on-shark-finning.html
Shark finning is the practice where fishermen cut the valuable fins from a shark and throw the rest of the shark back in the water - often while still alive. The practice has officially been illegal since 2003 but a loophole in the law only requires the weight of the fins caught to be around five percent of the total shark catch. As the average fin-to-shark ratio is around two percent, this effectively means that at least half of the sharks that are finned need not be landed.
Now EU fisheries commissioner Maria Damanaki is proposing a complete ban on 'finning' on all EU vessels around the world.
Mr Stevenson fought off Spanish efforts in 2006 to increase the fin to fish ratio to 6.5 percent, and he has long campaigned for a complete end to the barbaric practice so that every shark caught must be landed, rather than thrown back to die a lingering and agonising death.
Mr Stevenson, Conservative MEP for Scotland, said: “Sharks may have an image problem but they are crucial to the ocean's ecosystem. The practice of shark finning is both detrimental to our marine environment and unacceptably cruel to the shark.
"Sharks that are finned often list around on the ocean bed until they are attacked or they starve to death. Many people may not love sharks but they all see the cruelty in leaving a creature to die a painful and slow death.
"The shark finning trade is extremely lucrative and the punishments are miniscule compared to the rewards. EU law and monitoring need to change so that European fishermen are harshly punished for enacting cruelty and threatening some shark species.
"When these proposals come before MEPs I have no doubt that a few countries will seek to water them down. However, we will push for a rigorous ban.
"We need a ban on finning that enables fishermen to catch sharks in a way that puts conservation and humane treatment before making a quick buck."
Oceana, the international marine conservation organisation, has commended the European Commission on its proposal to amend the EU ban on shark finning.
Ricardo Aguilar, Research Director for Oceana in Europe said: “By opting for a fins-attached approach, the European Commission has heeded the advice of experts worldwide: landing sharks with their fins still naturally attached is the only possible way to guarantee that finning does not occur. The current ‘ban’ has been of little value for shark management and conservation, because loopholes make it impossible to even detect whether finning occurs. Furthermore, if all sharks must be landed with their fins attached, it will be much easier to identify the species caught, and therefore, to gather critical data about the status of shark populations.”
“A stronger ban on shark finning will bring significant benefits for shark fisheries management and conservation, not only in Europe, but in all of the oceans where European vessels are catching sharks,” added Dr. Allison Perry, marine wildlife scientist with Oceana in Europe. “We trust that the European Parliament and Council will support the Commission’s proposal, and that this positive step will be followed by action on other important measures that Europe has committed to under its Plan of Action for the Conservation and Management of Sharks.”
The EU includes some of the world’s major shark fishing nations – Spain, France, Portugal, and the UK. The largest EU shark fisheries occur on the high seas, where Spanish and Portuguese pelagic longliners that historically targeted mainly tuna and swordfish now increasingly catch sharks, particularly oceanic species such as blue sharks (Prionace glauca) and shortfin makos (Isurus oxyrinchus). More than half of large oceanic shark species are currently considered threatened.
http://www.fishnewseu.com/latest-news/scottish/7116-eu-proposes-outright-ban-on-shark-finning.html
Sunday, October 2, 2011
European Commission warns Italy on illegal use of drift-nets
THE European Commission has called on Italy to take measures and comply with an October 2009 Court of Justice ruling on Italy's continued illegal use of drift-nets.
The Court found that Italy had failed to adequately control and enforce the EU ban on the use of drift-nets. Safeguarding of fish stocks and the eradication of illegal fishing practices are crucial priorities for the EU, and the Commission, in particular Commissioner for Maritime Affairs and Fisheries, Maria Damanaki, deeply regrets Italy's long-standing infringement of the drift-net ban, which dates from 1992. If no satisfactory actions are taken within two months from the receipt of the Commission's letter, the Commission may refer this case to the Court of Justice again, this time asking the Court to impose significant financial penalties on Italy in accordance with the Treaty rules.
Fishing with illegal gear such as drift-nets is highly destructive, as it ruins marine habitats, endangers marine wildlife and threatens sustainable fisheries. Illegal fishing practices ruin the income of honest fishermen and coastal communities - and the future of fisheries altogether. Therefore, in the interest of all, implementation and enforcement of the rules are at the heart of the Commission priorities.
Despite persistent calls on Italy to fulfil its monitoring and enforcement tasks adequately with regard to illegal drift-nets, recent on-site inspections did not show any significant improvements as compared to the situation before the Court's judgement. The Commission's verifications indicate that drift-nets are still used illegally in Italy in large numbers, and that actions taken by national authorities are neither sufficient, nor efficient enough to deter their use.
Background
The origins of this case go back to 1992, when the EU adopted the drift-net ban prohibiting the use of drift-nets of over 2.5 km in length (in response to a 1991 UN General Assembly moratorium on large pelagic drift-nets).
Since then, the EU has constantly toughened its anti-drift-net rules to address growing concerns about this fishing technique, which is highly non-selective (high degree of by-catches of non-targeted species) and therefore poses a threat to the conservation of many fish stocks, and marine mammals. As from January 2002, the EU has completely banned the use of drift-nets, irrespective of their length, intended for the capture of certain fish stocks, such as albacore, bluefin tuna and swordfish.http://www.fishnewseu.com/latest-news/world/6748-european-commission-warns-italy-on-illegal-use-of-drift-nets.html
Wednesday, December 15, 2010
Danube wildlife threatened by EU plans to improve navigation
Danube River navigation scheme could damage huge ecosystem
December 2010. New plans to ease navigation bottlenecks on the Danube could threaten some of the river's most scenic and natural values, said WWF after the release of plans of the European Commission to increase navigation on the river as part of the EU Strategy for the Danube Region.
The Danube River basin, the most international river basin in the world, comprises 19 countries and is currently home to close to 100 million people. One quarter of them depend on the river for their drinking water.
WWF criticises the decision to increase navigation on the Danube by removing the so-called bottlenecks, obstacles to navigation during low water level. This usually involves deepening and widening the fairway with the help of old-fashioned and expensive infrastructures. Such interventions would not only affect local ecosystems, but the entire river morphology and dynamics as well as the associated flora and fauna.
Hungary badly affected
The number of existing navigation projects show the alarmingly broad definition being applied to the term bottleneck - it includes the last free flowing stretch of the Danube in Germany and the entire Hungarian section of the river. Many areas with outstanding natural values are also being investigated for intrusive navigational works. In the Lower Danube, islands like Belene, Cama-Dinu and Turcescu are considered bottlenecks at the same time as being part of Nature Parks or designated EU Natura 2000 sites.
Although the river has seen considerable improvements in its condition over the last decade, this decision could result in significant negative impacts on its unique environment without bringing the expected economic benefit to the region.
Diking and dredging
"Heavy investments in diking and dredging the Danube have been justified by various officials with reference to the Rhine River. But the Rhineland has very different conditions from the Danube area, with an industrial base that has developed over centuries and not just thanks to the river. Expecting an economic miracle from investments in Danube navigation is a myth, and potentially a very costly mistake." said Andreas Beckmann, Director of the WWF Danube-Carpathian Programme.
The Danube, as opposed to the Rhine, does not harbour as many industrial sites, and many of the large economic centres on the Danube are not located on the river.
Big mistake
"Today is a sad day", said Petruta Moisi, a prominent Romanian environmentalist who lives close to the river in Galati. "It's sad not because there will be navigation along the Danube River - the river has always been navigable - but because of the narrow mindset of the hydrologists and river engineers, who were all trained over the past 50 years and this is their final lifetime opportunity to get things wrong".
"It's the same pattern of thinking that made it possible for the former river wetlands and floodplains to be destroyed for good starting back in the early 1970s. I feel sad because I truly believed in all the decision makers' capacity for understanding the issues here. But who will pay the price now for doing things in an unsustainable way? You do not need to be smart to know that", Moisi said.
The current focus of the proposed strategy on expensive and out-dated approaches to increase navigation risks not only waste money but destroy valuable biodiversity and associated ecosystem services, from flood protection to water purification.
"Solutions for improving inland navigation without changing drastically the nature of the river are available and are less costly in financial as well as ecological terms. We need to invest in innovative ship design that fit the existing depth of the river, better information systems, and nature friendly infrastructure." added Beckmann.
WWF is calling on Danube countries and on Hungary as next leader of the EU Council to seize the opportunity of the Strategy to bring short and long term benefits to its population by using its enormous natural and cultural assets in a sustainable way.
Other aspects of the plan, which will continue the improvement of water quality and offer special protection to the sturgeon, were praised by WWF
http://www.wildlifeextra.com/go/news/danube-threat.html
December 2010. New plans to ease navigation bottlenecks on the Danube could threaten some of the river's most scenic and natural values, said WWF after the release of plans of the European Commission to increase navigation on the river as part of the EU Strategy for the Danube Region.
The Danube River basin, the most international river basin in the world, comprises 19 countries and is currently home to close to 100 million people. One quarter of them depend on the river for their drinking water.
WWF criticises the decision to increase navigation on the Danube by removing the so-called bottlenecks, obstacles to navigation during low water level. This usually involves deepening and widening the fairway with the help of old-fashioned and expensive infrastructures. Such interventions would not only affect local ecosystems, but the entire river morphology and dynamics as well as the associated flora and fauna.
Hungary badly affected
The number of existing navigation projects show the alarmingly broad definition being applied to the term bottleneck - it includes the last free flowing stretch of the Danube in Germany and the entire Hungarian section of the river. Many areas with outstanding natural values are also being investigated for intrusive navigational works. In the Lower Danube, islands like Belene, Cama-Dinu and Turcescu are considered bottlenecks at the same time as being part of Nature Parks or designated EU Natura 2000 sites.
Although the river has seen considerable improvements in its condition over the last decade, this decision could result in significant negative impacts on its unique environment without bringing the expected economic benefit to the region.
Diking and dredging
"Heavy investments in diking and dredging the Danube have been justified by various officials with reference to the Rhine River. But the Rhineland has very different conditions from the Danube area, with an industrial base that has developed over centuries and not just thanks to the river. Expecting an economic miracle from investments in Danube navigation is a myth, and potentially a very costly mistake." said Andreas Beckmann, Director of the WWF Danube-Carpathian Programme.
The Danube, as opposed to the Rhine, does not harbour as many industrial sites, and many of the large economic centres on the Danube are not located on the river.
Big mistake
"Today is a sad day", said Petruta Moisi, a prominent Romanian environmentalist who lives close to the river in Galati. "It's sad not because there will be navigation along the Danube River - the river has always been navigable - but because of the narrow mindset of the hydrologists and river engineers, who were all trained over the past 50 years and this is their final lifetime opportunity to get things wrong".
"It's the same pattern of thinking that made it possible for the former river wetlands and floodplains to be destroyed for good starting back in the early 1970s. I feel sad because I truly believed in all the decision makers' capacity for understanding the issues here. But who will pay the price now for doing things in an unsustainable way? You do not need to be smart to know that", Moisi said.
The current focus of the proposed strategy on expensive and out-dated approaches to increase navigation risks not only waste money but destroy valuable biodiversity and associated ecosystem services, from flood protection to water purification.
"Solutions for improving inland navigation without changing drastically the nature of the river are available and are less costly in financial as well as ecological terms. We need to invest in innovative ship design that fit the existing depth of the river, better information systems, and nature friendly infrastructure." added Beckmann.
WWF is calling on Danube countries and on Hungary as next leader of the EU Council to seize the opportunity of the Strategy to bring short and long term benefits to its population by using its enormous natural and cultural assets in a sustainable way.
Other aspects of the plan, which will continue the improvement of water quality and offer special protection to the sturgeon, were praised by WWF
http://www.wildlifeextra.com/go/news/danube-threat.html
Danube wildlife threatened by EU plans to improve navigation
Danube River navigation scheme could damage huge ecosystem
December 2010. New plans to ease navigation bottlenecks on the Danube could threaten some of the river's most scenic and natural values, said WWF after the release of plans of the European Commission to increase navigation on the river as part of the EU Strategy for the Danube Region.
The Danube River basin, the most international river basin in the world, comprises 19 countries and is currently home to close to 100 million people. One quarter of them depend on the river for their drinking water.
WWF criticises the decision to increase navigation on the Danube by removing the so-called bottlenecks, obstacles to navigation during low water level. This usually involves deepening and widening the fairway with the help of old-fashioned and expensive infrastructures. Such interventions would not only affect local ecosystems, but the entire river morphology and dynamics as well as the associated flora and fauna.
Hungary badly affected
The number of existing navigation projects show the alarmingly broad definition being applied to the term bottleneck - it includes the last free flowing stretch of the Danube in Germany and the entire Hungarian section of the river. Many areas with outstanding natural values are also being investigated for intrusive navigational works. In the Lower Danube, islands like Belene, Cama-Dinu and Turcescu are considered bottlenecks at the same time as being part of Nature Parks or designated EU Natura 2000 sites.
Although the river has seen considerable improvements in its condition over the last decade, this decision could result in significant negative impacts on its unique environment without bringing the expected economic benefit to the region.
Diking and dredging
"Heavy investments in diking and dredging the Danube have been justified by various officials with reference to the Rhine River. But the Rhineland has very different conditions from the Danube area, with an industrial base that has developed over centuries and not just thanks to the river. Expecting an economic miracle from investments in Danube navigation is a myth, and potentially a very costly mistake." said Andreas Beckmann, Director of the WWF Danube-Carpathian Programme.
The Danube, as opposed to the Rhine, does not harbour as many industrial sites, and many of the large economic centres on the Danube are not located on the river.
Big mistake
"Today is a sad day", said Petruta Moisi, a prominent Romanian environmentalist who lives close to the river in Galati. "It's sad not because there will be navigation along the Danube River - the river has always been navigable - but because of the narrow mindset of the hydrologists and river engineers, who were all trained over the past 50 years and this is their final lifetime opportunity to get things wrong".
"It's the same pattern of thinking that made it possible for the former river wetlands and floodplains to be destroyed for good starting back in the early 1970s. I feel sad because I truly believed in all the decision makers' capacity for understanding the issues here. But who will pay the price now for doing things in an unsustainable way? You do not need to be smart to know that", Moisi said.
The current focus of the proposed strategy on expensive and out-dated approaches to increase navigation risks not only waste money but destroy valuable biodiversity and associated ecosystem services, from flood protection to water purification.
"Solutions for improving inland navigation without changing drastically the nature of the river are available and are less costly in financial as well as ecological terms. We need to invest in innovative ship design that fit the existing depth of the river, better information systems, and nature friendly infrastructure." added Beckmann.
WWF is calling on Danube countries and on Hungary as next leader of the EU Council to seize the opportunity of the Strategy to bring short and long term benefits to its population by using its enormous natural and cultural assets in a sustainable way.
Other aspects of the plan, which will continue the improvement of water quality and offer special protection to the sturgeon, were praised by WWF
http://www.wildlifeextra.com/go/news/danube-threat.html
December 2010. New plans to ease navigation bottlenecks on the Danube could threaten some of the river's most scenic and natural values, said WWF after the release of plans of the European Commission to increase navigation on the river as part of the EU Strategy for the Danube Region.
The Danube River basin, the most international river basin in the world, comprises 19 countries and is currently home to close to 100 million people. One quarter of them depend on the river for their drinking water.
WWF criticises the decision to increase navigation on the Danube by removing the so-called bottlenecks, obstacles to navigation during low water level. This usually involves deepening and widening the fairway with the help of old-fashioned and expensive infrastructures. Such interventions would not only affect local ecosystems, but the entire river morphology and dynamics as well as the associated flora and fauna.
Hungary badly affected
The number of existing navigation projects show the alarmingly broad definition being applied to the term bottleneck - it includes the last free flowing stretch of the Danube in Germany and the entire Hungarian section of the river. Many areas with outstanding natural values are also being investigated for intrusive navigational works. In the Lower Danube, islands like Belene, Cama-Dinu and Turcescu are considered bottlenecks at the same time as being part of Nature Parks or designated EU Natura 2000 sites.
Although the river has seen considerable improvements in its condition over the last decade, this decision could result in significant negative impacts on its unique environment without bringing the expected economic benefit to the region.
Diking and dredging
"Heavy investments in diking and dredging the Danube have been justified by various officials with reference to the Rhine River. But the Rhineland has very different conditions from the Danube area, with an industrial base that has developed over centuries and not just thanks to the river. Expecting an economic miracle from investments in Danube navigation is a myth, and potentially a very costly mistake." said Andreas Beckmann, Director of the WWF Danube-Carpathian Programme.
The Danube, as opposed to the Rhine, does not harbour as many industrial sites, and many of the large economic centres on the Danube are not located on the river.
Big mistake
"Today is a sad day", said Petruta Moisi, a prominent Romanian environmentalist who lives close to the river in Galati. "It's sad not because there will be navigation along the Danube River - the river has always been navigable - but because of the narrow mindset of the hydrologists and river engineers, who were all trained over the past 50 years and this is their final lifetime opportunity to get things wrong".
"It's the same pattern of thinking that made it possible for the former river wetlands and floodplains to be destroyed for good starting back in the early 1970s. I feel sad because I truly believed in all the decision makers' capacity for understanding the issues here. But who will pay the price now for doing things in an unsustainable way? You do not need to be smart to know that", Moisi said.
The current focus of the proposed strategy on expensive and out-dated approaches to increase navigation risks not only waste money but destroy valuable biodiversity and associated ecosystem services, from flood protection to water purification.
"Solutions for improving inland navigation without changing drastically the nature of the river are available and are less costly in financial as well as ecological terms. We need to invest in innovative ship design that fit the existing depth of the river, better information systems, and nature friendly infrastructure." added Beckmann.
WWF is calling on Danube countries and on Hungary as next leader of the EU Council to seize the opportunity of the Strategy to bring short and long term benefits to its population by using its enormous natural and cultural assets in a sustainable way.
Other aspects of the plan, which will continue the improvement of water quality and offer special protection to the sturgeon, were praised by WWF
http://www.wildlifeextra.com/go/news/danube-threat.html
Monday, November 8, 2010
European Union seal ban takes effect
'This about the right of Europeans to say no to products fom cruel hunts'
November 2010: A temporary suspension of the EU regulation banning the trade in seal products has now been revoked by the European Union's General Court, to the delight of wildlife campaigners, allowing the full implementation of this momentous legislation.
Robbie Marsland, UK Director of the International Fund for Animal Welfare which has run a 40-year-long campaign to end cruel seal hunting, said: ‘We are pleased that the court has made the right decision and lifted the suspension. This ban is about the right of Europeans to say no to products that stem from cruel and unnecessary hunts. IFAW will continue to work to defend this right and to defend the EU seal ban.'
The EU ban prohibits the trade in products from all commercial seal hunts, including those in Canada, Namibia and Norway, but does not affect sealing by Inuit and other indigenous peoples.
Lesley O'Donnell, IFAW's EU Director, said: ‘The applicants in the court case included most of the Canadian and Norwegian commercial sealing industry, and as such, had the suspension not ended there could be no guarantee to Europeans that they were not providing a market for products from cruel commercial seal hunts.'
IFAW opposes Canada's commercial seal hunt because of its unacceptable cruelty. The largest marine mammal hunt in the world sees seals being clubbed or shot, primarily so their fur can be used to provide luxury items for the fashion industry.
The EU will likely have to defend its seal ban at the World Trade Organisation (WTO). Canada recently requested additional WTO consultations with the EU on the ban. The consultations are expected to take place before the end of the year.
http://www.wildlifeextra.com/go/news/seal-product-ban.html
November 2010: A temporary suspension of the EU regulation banning the trade in seal products has now been revoked by the European Union's General Court, to the delight of wildlife campaigners, allowing the full implementation of this momentous legislation.
Robbie Marsland, UK Director of the International Fund for Animal Welfare which has run a 40-year-long campaign to end cruel seal hunting, said: ‘We are pleased that the court has made the right decision and lifted the suspension. This ban is about the right of Europeans to say no to products that stem from cruel and unnecessary hunts. IFAW will continue to work to defend this right and to defend the EU seal ban.'
The EU ban prohibits the trade in products from all commercial seal hunts, including those in Canada, Namibia and Norway, but does not affect sealing by Inuit and other indigenous peoples.
Lesley O'Donnell, IFAW's EU Director, said: ‘The applicants in the court case included most of the Canadian and Norwegian commercial sealing industry, and as such, had the suspension not ended there could be no guarantee to Europeans that they were not providing a market for products from cruel commercial seal hunts.'
IFAW opposes Canada's commercial seal hunt because of its unacceptable cruelty. The largest marine mammal hunt in the world sees seals being clubbed or shot, primarily so their fur can be used to provide luxury items for the fashion industry.
The EU will likely have to defend its seal ban at the World Trade Organisation (WTO). Canada recently requested additional WTO consultations with the EU on the ban. The consultations are expected to take place before the end of the year.
http://www.wildlifeextra.com/go/news/seal-product-ban.html
European Union seal ban takes effect
'This about the right of Europeans to say no to products fom cruel hunts'
November 2010: A temporary suspension of the EU regulation banning the trade in seal products has now been revoked by the European Union's General Court, to the delight of wildlife campaigners, allowing the full implementation of this momentous legislation.
Robbie Marsland, UK Director of the International Fund for Animal Welfare which has run a 40-year-long campaign to end cruel seal hunting, said: ‘We are pleased that the court has made the right decision and lifted the suspension. This ban is about the right of Europeans to say no to products that stem from cruel and unnecessary hunts. IFAW will continue to work to defend this right and to defend the EU seal ban.'
The EU ban prohibits the trade in products from all commercial seal hunts, including those in Canada, Namibia and Norway, but does not affect sealing by Inuit and other indigenous peoples.
Lesley O'Donnell, IFAW's EU Director, said: ‘The applicants in the court case included most of the Canadian and Norwegian commercial sealing industry, and as such, had the suspension not ended there could be no guarantee to Europeans that they were not providing a market for products from cruel commercial seal hunts.'
IFAW opposes Canada's commercial seal hunt because of its unacceptable cruelty. The largest marine mammal hunt in the world sees seals being clubbed or shot, primarily so their fur can be used to provide luxury items for the fashion industry.
The EU will likely have to defend its seal ban at the World Trade Organisation (WTO). Canada recently requested additional WTO consultations with the EU on the ban. The consultations are expected to take place before the end of the year.
http://www.wildlifeextra.com/go/news/seal-product-ban.html
November 2010: A temporary suspension of the EU regulation banning the trade in seal products has now been revoked by the European Union's General Court, to the delight of wildlife campaigners, allowing the full implementation of this momentous legislation.
Robbie Marsland, UK Director of the International Fund for Animal Welfare which has run a 40-year-long campaign to end cruel seal hunting, said: ‘We are pleased that the court has made the right decision and lifted the suspension. This ban is about the right of Europeans to say no to products that stem from cruel and unnecessary hunts. IFAW will continue to work to defend this right and to defend the EU seal ban.'
The EU ban prohibits the trade in products from all commercial seal hunts, including those in Canada, Namibia and Norway, but does not affect sealing by Inuit and other indigenous peoples.
Lesley O'Donnell, IFAW's EU Director, said: ‘The applicants in the court case included most of the Canadian and Norwegian commercial sealing industry, and as such, had the suspension not ended there could be no guarantee to Europeans that they were not providing a market for products from cruel commercial seal hunts.'
IFAW opposes Canada's commercial seal hunt because of its unacceptable cruelty. The largest marine mammal hunt in the world sees seals being clubbed or shot, primarily so their fur can be used to provide luxury items for the fashion industry.
The EU will likely have to defend its seal ban at the World Trade Organisation (WTO). Canada recently requested additional WTO consultations with the EU on the ban. The consultations are expected to take place before the end of the year.
http://www.wildlifeextra.com/go/news/seal-product-ban.html
Sunday, September 19, 2010
Urgent call on EU to stop billion-euro 'alien invasion' (via Dawn Holloway)
Leading experts on invasive species are demanding Europe-wide legislation be put in place by next year to tackle the threat to native wildlife.
The researchers want urgent action from the EU to protect Europe's indigenous species from these "alien invaders".
Invasive, non-native animals, plants and microorganisms cause at least 12 billion euros of damage in Europe each year.
The scientists are meeting at the Neobiota conference in Copenhagen.
They are demanding Europe-wide legislation to be in place by next year to ensure the threat doesn't worsen.
Invasive species are defined as those that are introduced accidentally or deliberately into a place where they are not normally found.
A European inventory in 2008 found more than 10,000 alien species in Europe, with 1,300 having some kind of impact. This impact was exerted either on the environment, economy or, on human health.
And numbers are on the rise. Research published this year in the journal Science found alien species in Europe have increased by 76% in the last 30 years alone.
Piero Genovesi is chair of the Invasive Species Specialist Group (ISSG), a global network of experts on invasive species. He told BBC News that the figure of 12 billion Euros represents a significant underestimate of the impact of alien species.
Huge cost
"For many species we have no idea what damage they cause or their economic impact. This is just a fraction of the actual cost," he told BBC News.
And he added that this estimate does not include any assesment of the economic value of lost biodiversity caused by non-native species.
Scientists gathered at the conference are calling for urgent action by the European Union to implement laws similar to those that already exist in countries like New Zealand and Australia.
"We're asking the EU to rapidly develop and approve a policy on invasive species, fulfilling the formal commitment agreed by the council of European ministers in June 2009," Mr Genovesi told BBC News.
"This is urgent, we would like this to be in place by next year."
Some species introductions have been intentional. The Ruddy duck was introduced to Europe as an ornamental species. It is one of the worst culprits because of its aggressive courting behaviour and willingness to interbreed with endangered, native duck species.
Mr Genovesi, who is also a senior scientist with the ISPRA (The Institute for Environmental Protection and Research) in Italy hopes new legislation will also help prevent non deliberate introductions of species.
"Legislation on aquaculture, for example, would reduce the risks of accidental escapes from fish farms into the environment, he told BBC News.
Human health
As well as the impact on biodiversity and agriculture some species are also a problem for human health.
The Asian Tiger mosquito (Aedes albopictus) originally native to areas of South East Asia has, in the last couple of decades, invaded many countries throughout the world because of increasing international travel and transport of goods.
A. albopictus is one of the 100 worst offenders in Europe according to DAISIE (Delivering Alien Invasive Species Inventories for Europe) an inventory of invasive species in Europe.
It is the vector for Chikungunya fever which, in humans, causes a severe illness which affects the joints and can last for years.
Avian invaders
New research in the journal Biological Conservation has shown that many bird species have an impact on agriculture and human health as far reaching, if not worse, than many mammals.
Wolfgang Nentwig, from the Institute of Ecology and Evolution in Switzerland has just published one of the first detailed studies of the impact of alien birds in Europe.
The Canada Goose (Branta canadensis) was the worst culprit, having the biggest impact on both the environment and economy.
Studies like his and new legislation will, scientists, hope lead to better targeting, eradication and control of non-native, damaging species in Europe.
By Pamela Rutherford
Reporter, BBC News
The researchers want urgent action from the EU to protect Europe's indigenous species from these "alien invaders".
Invasive, non-native animals, plants and microorganisms cause at least 12 billion euros of damage in Europe each year.
The scientists are meeting at the Neobiota conference in Copenhagen.
They are demanding Europe-wide legislation to be in place by next year to ensure the threat doesn't worsen.
Invasive species are defined as those that are introduced accidentally or deliberately into a place where they are not normally found.
A European inventory in 2008 found more than 10,000 alien species in Europe, with 1,300 having some kind of impact. This impact was exerted either on the environment, economy or, on human health.
And numbers are on the rise. Research published this year in the journal Science found alien species in Europe have increased by 76% in the last 30 years alone.
Piero Genovesi is chair of the Invasive Species Specialist Group (ISSG), a global network of experts on invasive species. He told BBC News that the figure of 12 billion Euros represents a significant underestimate of the impact of alien species.
Huge cost
"For many species we have no idea what damage they cause or their economic impact. This is just a fraction of the actual cost," he told BBC News.
And he added that this estimate does not include any assesment of the economic value of lost biodiversity caused by non-native species.
Scientists gathered at the conference are calling for urgent action by the European Union to implement laws similar to those that already exist in countries like New Zealand and Australia.
"We're asking the EU to rapidly develop and approve a policy on invasive species, fulfilling the formal commitment agreed by the council of European ministers in June 2009," Mr Genovesi told BBC News.
"This is urgent, we would like this to be in place by next year."
Some species introductions have been intentional. The Ruddy duck was introduced to Europe as an ornamental species. It is one of the worst culprits because of its aggressive courting behaviour and willingness to interbreed with endangered, native duck species.
Mr Genovesi, who is also a senior scientist with the ISPRA (The Institute for Environmental Protection and Research) in Italy hopes new legislation will also help prevent non deliberate introductions of species.
"Legislation on aquaculture, for example, would reduce the risks of accidental escapes from fish farms into the environment, he told BBC News.
Human health
As well as the impact on biodiversity and agriculture some species are also a problem for human health.
The Asian Tiger mosquito (Aedes albopictus) originally native to areas of South East Asia has, in the last couple of decades, invaded many countries throughout the world because of increasing international travel and transport of goods.
A. albopictus is one of the 100 worst offenders in Europe according to DAISIE (Delivering Alien Invasive Species Inventories for Europe) an inventory of invasive species in Europe.
It is the vector for Chikungunya fever which, in humans, causes a severe illness which affects the joints and can last for years.
Avian invaders
New research in the journal Biological Conservation has shown that many bird species have an impact on agriculture and human health as far reaching, if not worse, than many mammals.
Wolfgang Nentwig, from the Institute of Ecology and Evolution in Switzerland has just published one of the first detailed studies of the impact of alien birds in Europe.
The Canada Goose (Branta canadensis) was the worst culprit, having the biggest impact on both the environment and economy.
Studies like his and new legislation will, scientists, hope lead to better targeting, eradication and control of non-native, damaging species in Europe.
By Pamela Rutherford
Reporter, BBC News
Urgent call on EU to stop billion-euro 'alien invasion' (via Dawn Holloway)
Leading experts on invasive species are demanding Europe-wide legislation be put in place by next year to tackle the threat to native wildlife.
The researchers want urgent action from the EU to protect Europe's indigenous species from these "alien invaders".
Invasive, non-native animals, plants and microorganisms cause at least 12 billion euros of damage in Europe each year.
The scientists are meeting at the Neobiota conference in Copenhagen.
They are demanding Europe-wide legislation to be in place by next year to ensure the threat doesn't worsen.
Invasive species are defined as those that are introduced accidentally or deliberately into a place where they are not normally found.
A European inventory in 2008 found more than 10,000 alien species in Europe, with 1,300 having some kind of impact. This impact was exerted either on the environment, economy or, on human health.
And numbers are on the rise. Research published this year in the journal Science found alien species in Europe have increased by 76% in the last 30 years alone.
Piero Genovesi is chair of the Invasive Species Specialist Group (ISSG), a global network of experts on invasive species. He told BBC News that the figure of 12 billion Euros represents a significant underestimate of the impact of alien species.
Huge cost
"For many species we have no idea what damage they cause or their economic impact. This is just a fraction of the actual cost," he told BBC News.
And he added that this estimate does not include any assesment of the economic value of lost biodiversity caused by non-native species.
Scientists gathered at the conference are calling for urgent action by the European Union to implement laws similar to those that already exist in countries like New Zealand and Australia.
"We're asking the EU to rapidly develop and approve a policy on invasive species, fulfilling the formal commitment agreed by the council of European ministers in June 2009," Mr Genovesi told BBC News.
"This is urgent, we would like this to be in place by next year."
Some species introductions have been intentional. The Ruddy duck was introduced to Europe as an ornamental species. It is one of the worst culprits because of its aggressive courting behaviour and willingness to interbreed with endangered, native duck species.
Mr Genovesi, who is also a senior scientist with the ISPRA (The Institute for Environmental Protection and Research) in Italy hopes new legislation will also help prevent non deliberate introductions of species.
"Legislation on aquaculture, for example, would reduce the risks of accidental escapes from fish farms into the environment, he told BBC News.
Human health
As well as the impact on biodiversity and agriculture some species are also a problem for human health.
The Asian Tiger mosquito (Aedes albopictus) originally native to areas of South East Asia has, in the last couple of decades, invaded many countries throughout the world because of increasing international travel and transport of goods.
A. albopictus is one of the 100 worst offenders in Europe according to DAISIE (Delivering Alien Invasive Species Inventories for Europe) an inventory of invasive species in Europe.
It is the vector for Chikungunya fever which, in humans, causes a severe illness which affects the joints and can last for years.
Avian invaders
New research in the journal Biological Conservation has shown that many bird species have an impact on agriculture and human health as far reaching, if not worse, than many mammals.
Wolfgang Nentwig, from the Institute of Ecology and Evolution in Switzerland has just published one of the first detailed studies of the impact of alien birds in Europe.
The Canada Goose (Branta canadensis) was the worst culprit, having the biggest impact on both the environment and economy.
Studies like his and new legislation will, scientists, hope lead to better targeting, eradication and control of non-native, damaging species in Europe.
By Pamela Rutherford
Reporter, BBC News
The researchers want urgent action from the EU to protect Europe's indigenous species from these "alien invaders".
Invasive, non-native animals, plants and microorganisms cause at least 12 billion euros of damage in Europe each year.
The scientists are meeting at the Neobiota conference in Copenhagen.
They are demanding Europe-wide legislation to be in place by next year to ensure the threat doesn't worsen.
Invasive species are defined as those that are introduced accidentally or deliberately into a place where they are not normally found.
A European inventory in 2008 found more than 10,000 alien species in Europe, with 1,300 having some kind of impact. This impact was exerted either on the environment, economy or, on human health.
And numbers are on the rise. Research published this year in the journal Science found alien species in Europe have increased by 76% in the last 30 years alone.
Piero Genovesi is chair of the Invasive Species Specialist Group (ISSG), a global network of experts on invasive species. He told BBC News that the figure of 12 billion Euros represents a significant underestimate of the impact of alien species.
Huge cost
"For many species we have no idea what damage they cause or their economic impact. This is just a fraction of the actual cost," he told BBC News.
And he added that this estimate does not include any assesment of the economic value of lost biodiversity caused by non-native species.
Scientists gathered at the conference are calling for urgent action by the European Union to implement laws similar to those that already exist in countries like New Zealand and Australia.
"We're asking the EU to rapidly develop and approve a policy on invasive species, fulfilling the formal commitment agreed by the council of European ministers in June 2009," Mr Genovesi told BBC News.
"This is urgent, we would like this to be in place by next year."
Some species introductions have been intentional. The Ruddy duck was introduced to Europe as an ornamental species. It is one of the worst culprits because of its aggressive courting behaviour and willingness to interbreed with endangered, native duck species.
Mr Genovesi, who is also a senior scientist with the ISPRA (The Institute for Environmental Protection and Research) in Italy hopes new legislation will also help prevent non deliberate introductions of species.
"Legislation on aquaculture, for example, would reduce the risks of accidental escapes from fish farms into the environment, he told BBC News.
Human health
As well as the impact on biodiversity and agriculture some species are also a problem for human health.
The Asian Tiger mosquito (Aedes albopictus) originally native to areas of South East Asia has, in the last couple of decades, invaded many countries throughout the world because of increasing international travel and transport of goods.
A. albopictus is one of the 100 worst offenders in Europe according to DAISIE (Delivering Alien Invasive Species Inventories for Europe) an inventory of invasive species in Europe.
It is the vector for Chikungunya fever which, in humans, causes a severe illness which affects the joints and can last for years.
Avian invaders
New research in the journal Biological Conservation has shown that many bird species have an impact on agriculture and human health as far reaching, if not worse, than many mammals.
Wolfgang Nentwig, from the Institute of Ecology and Evolution in Switzerland has just published one of the first detailed studies of the impact of alien birds in Europe.
The Canada Goose (Branta canadensis) was the worst culprit, having the biggest impact on both the environment and economy.
Studies like his and new legislation will, scientists, hope lead to better targeting, eradication and control of non-native, damaging species in Europe.
By Pamela Rutherford
Reporter, BBC News
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)