How China's Anti-NGO Jihad Hits MNCs

♠ Posted by Emmanuel in China,Europe,NGOs at 6/02/2015 01:30:00 AM

These running dogs of imperialist capitalism don't know what's hit 'em.

It may be a further sign of Chinese hubris, but for what it's worth, persecution of foreign concerns continues apace. New laws are on the drawing board for further controlling and monitoring the activities of non-government organizations. So what, you may say, the Chinese have always maintained tight reins on these potential foreign subversives. Go ask the Catholic Church. Actually, foreign business associations usually stick out of politics, but this time is somewhat different: trade associations may be subject to the same sort of official harassment other organizations operating in China have long experienced such as aid agencies, environmental groups, etc:

Foreign organizations in China, whether or not they are for-profit, tend to not want to stick their necks out on political issues even if their interests are at stake out of fear of official retaliation. Nonprofits in general, especially those working in areas deemed sensitive by the government such as law and education, are hesitant to take a collective position out of fear it would alarm Beijing, according to Anthony Spires, a scholar on civil society at Chinese University of Hong Kong who has met with foreign nonprofits to discuss the draft law.

However, the vagueness of new blanket laws is alarming business groups:

The EU Chamber, in a statement, said that its member companies rely on foreign industry groups, universities and environmental and other nongovernmental groups for information, research, and corporate social responsibility activities. The draft law will reduce the ability and likely willingness of these groups to work in China and that would “subsequently limit both Chinese and foreign businesses from benefiting from the value they add,” chamber President Joerg Wuttke said.

Currently, foreign nonprofit groups have few ways to register legally, causing some to register as businesses or not registering at all. Foreign chambers of commerce have been an exception, with special regulations in place to allow them to register. It’s unclear whether that would change under the new law, given its vague language, legal experts said. Under the current proposal, all foreign nonprofits are required to apply for registration in China or for temporary permits to conduct activities, including issuing grants in the country. Groups would only be permitted to operate one office in China unless granted permission by the State Council, the cabinet.

Chief among the business groups’ concerns is the authority the law gives China’s police, who are generally unfamiliar with the work the business groups do, from trade promotion to lobbying for market access for foreign companies involved in semiconductors, soybeans and software. The draft law also requires that nonprofit groups submit regular work plans and reports to authorities and restricts the numbers of foreign staff, potentially adding to costs for trade and industry NGOs as well as foreign companies that work with foreign NGOs in China, business groups say.

Dumb gweilo (foreign devil) capitalists. A China more confident in its abilities was always going to pull the welcome mat sooner or later after gaining knowledge necessary from foreigners to make a buck. Or so they think. If collateral damage from increasing jingoism and paranoia about foreigners hits foreign chambers of commerce, do you really think China gives a #$%^ ?

Read More

Big Pharma v India: The Glivec Case Revisited

♠ Posted by Emmanuel in CSR,Europe,India,NGOs at 9/06/2011 12:01:00 AM

Ooh, this makes me angry. Very early four years ago, I posted about Swiss pharmaceutical giant Novartis going up against Indian firms manufacturing generic versions of the leukaemia drug Glivec (Gleevec in the US). Perhaps presciently, I parenthetically added "to be continued." Well, it's about time we revisited this story.

This row concerns the Indian Patent Office not honouring Novartis' wish to extend its patent on the drug for another twenty years by introducing incremental innovations. As is the case with many so-called blockbuster drugs, pharmaceutical firms often try to forestall dramatic drops in sales when patents expire and generics or low-priced copies enter the market. A common ploy is to make incremental changes to try and extend the life of these patents. Further, they claim this practice is acceptable under WTO TRIPS. The point of contention in Indian courts is that the efficacy of newer formulations of Glivec may not necessarily be substantial enough to warrant patent extension. Nevertheless, Novartis has been pressing India hard on this particular case for obvious reasons: aside from being a huge potential market, India is also one of the world's largest producers of generics.

Hence the battle rages on. The latest news is that Novartis' appeal against Indian patent law will be ruled on shortly. Just as before, Medicin Sans Frontieres (Doctors Without Borders) is particularly wary since its global supply of generic versions of the leukemia drug would be under threat if Novartis succeeds. From Agence-France Presse:

Supply of cheap copycat drugs for the developing world could be blocked if Swiss pharmaceutical giant Novartis wins a challenge to India’s patent law, medical charity MSF said on Monday. The warning came as India’s Supreme Court was due Tuesday to hear more arguments in an appeal by Novartis seeking patent protection for its leukaemia drug Glivec in a case watched closely by the global pharmaceutical industry.

“If the patent law challenge is successful, it would have a devastating impact on access to affordable medicines across the developing world,” said Leena Menghaney, India representative of Medecins Sans Frontieres (MSF). Novartis is “trying to shut down the pharmacy of the developing world,” she said.

The Supreme Court case is the final act in a legal battle between Novartis and patient groups which has stretched over six years in India, where local firms produce generic versions of branded drugs for a fraction of their price. Pharmaceutical companies argue that protecting patents are crucial to stimulating the research and development of new drugs.

Novartis’ challenge goes to the heart of India’s patent act, which says a new patent cannot be granted for an old drug unless changes make it significantly more effective. Novartis said it could not make any immediate comment. But in the past the drug maker has insisted so-called “incremental innovations” should be patentable and India’s refusal breaches World Trade Organization (WTO) obligations [i.e., Trade-Related Intellectual Property Rights or TRIPS].

MSF buys 80 percent of its generic AIDS drugs from India, and the humanitarian organisation said it is currently keeping 170,000 people in 19 countries alive through the treatment. “We couldn’t afford to treat them all without these generic drugs,” said Joanna Keenan, spokesman for the Geneva-based charity.

I have outlined above why this case is one Novartis wishes to pursue because of the importance of India to the future of the pharmaceutical trade. I also think that Novartis perceives the negative publicity from this case as being outweighed by the "litmus test" nature of its outcome. Do not forget that in ongoing negotiations for the EU-India FTA, one of the main sticking points is access to affordable medicines. Hopefully the latter won't be so eager to complete a deal that it caves in on this issue for there will be substantial implications for other LDCs' supplies because of India's status as a major source of generics. All the same, I think that these attempts to circumvent compulsory licensing LDCs can rightfully avail of and jam up various countries' legal systems reflect badly on Big Pharma.

If the nature of this case is heard by a wider audience, I am sure the public outcry would make the likes of Novartis give in once and for all. With so much at stake and less-than-stellar media coverage, though, I think these firms have decided to take their chances.

Also see the "NGO Open letter over Novartis’ persistent legal actions in India" for a better understanding of the civil society standpoint.

Read More

What If Greenpeace Ran China?

♠ Posted by Emmanuel in China,Environment,NGOs at 3/04/2011 09:48:00 PM

Though I am very often at loggerheads with positions that Greenpeace takes, a significant part of the following makes sense to me at least. As we all know, China's rise to becoming the world's second largest economy has been accompanied by becoming the world's most polluting economy in terms of carbon emissions and likely much else. My general belief is that while the PRC leadership expresses concern over these facts, it is reluctant to offend export lobbies in resource-intensive manufacturing industries. Moreover, it is not so easy of breaking away decisively with what, for the most part, can now be considered a "tried and true" growth strategy.

As a remnant of Soviet-style central planning, the Politburo still prepares five-year plans, basically blueprints for running the country. While the likes of William Easterly and those of a libertarian bent pooh-pooh these plans, it is remarkable how the major emerging economies China and India still engage in them. Though environmental overtures were already evident in the 11th and indeed the 10th five year plan, Greenpeace suggests the difference with the forthcoming document may be that it will have more teeth. So it can wish; let's see. In the meantime, if Greenpeace ran China, it would probably implement its following suggestions:

“In the last 30 years, China’s rapid economic development has astounded the world, but it has also exacted a heavy price on the environment and natural resources. Severe industrial and agricultural pollution is already taking a toll on public welfare and economic development. Meanwhile, climate change not only exposes China to increasing international pressure, but also has dire threats to the country’s water resources and food security,” says Greenpeace Campaign Director Sze Pang Cheung. “China urgently needs to transform its development model, which currently prioritizes economic growth, and instead embark on a healthy, sustainable path of green development.”

Thus, building on its over ten years of experience in China, Greenpeace has prepared some comments and suggestions on the forthcoming 12th Five-Year Plan:

1. We suggest that the government improves its energy efficiency target and ensure that they are met. Regarding the highly possible 16% target reduction in energy intensity (energy used to produce each unit of GDP), Greenpeace believes that this is not ambitious enough and will not sufficiently pressure local governments to put forth the fullest effort to meet the increasingly difficult challenges of improving energy efficiency. Learning from its past experiences, the Chinese government should establish higher energy savings targets, and implement more ambitious action plans and supporting polices to ensure their fulfillment.

2. We recommend that the government clearly define the strategy to adjust China’s energy mix, to halt the rapid growth of coal-fired power plants and gradually decrease the country’s over-reliance on coal. We hope that the environment tax can be implemented in the early phase of the 12th Five-Year Plan, and that it will include carbon dioxide so that the price of coal fully reflects its true environmental cost. At the same time, we recommend that government set bold targets for the development of renewable energy and actively solve bottlenecks – such as grid access – that are constraining the further expansion of renewable energy.

3. We understand that the 12th Five-Year Plan will include “invisible pollutants” such as heavy metals for the first time, as well as a comprehensive approach to pollutant management and control, including the key concept of prevention at the source. This marks historical progress in both the types of pollutants covered and the approach to pollution management. We recommend tracing back the control of heavy metals to industrial demand for these elements in their production chains. We also suggest setting limitations on the use of heavy metals in certain products and processes. At the same time, we call for greater information disclosure and public participation to make it fully possible to achieve pollutant control targets.

4. We recommend that the government establishes more detailed and more comprehensive policies and laws to regulate agricultural non-point source pollution. We call for the decreased use of pesticides and fertilizers to reduce and control agricultural pollution, an end to the commercialization process of genetically engineered crops (especially rice and corn), and the implementation of long-term plans to promote the development of ecological agriculture. Through these various policies, China will be gradually freed from its over-reliance on chemical agriculture.

Sze Pang Cheung says, “We believe that the Chinese government will continuously increase the strength, scope, and depth of its policies on energy savings and emissions reduction, environmental management, and adjustments of the economy and energy mix. At the same time, it will become the trend to implement more policies, expand environmental technologies, and support the growth of renewable energy and clean production. In such a historic transformation, we expect that local governments and industries will be farsighted enough to place energy intensity and pollution reduction targets over GDP growth. If they can seize this opportunity, then China can occupy a prime position in the race to green development.”

The full PDF is also available online. Considering that NGO activity in China is highly regulated, it is remarkable that Greenpeace is quite sanguine on the prospects for greening China. Then again, you would naturally think that it would be more sympathetic to a socialist regime than its typical bogeyman--the capitalist multinational firm.

Read More

Applying CSR Pressure on Indonesia's Sinar Mas

♠ Posted by Emmanuel in Environment,NGOs,Southeast Asia at 9/07/2010 12:01:00 AM

Clear-cutting rainforests is perhaps the environmental issue confronting Southeast Asia. Not only is deforestation blamed for increasing the severity of floods during the monsoon season, but it is also feared that irreversible biodiversity loss may result from disturbing these unique ecosystems. A new cause celebre among environmental activists is the Indonesian conglomerate Sinar Mas. While it has many different activities, that which it is increasingly known for is clearing prime rainforests in alleged contravention of Indonesian law to grow palm oil used by multinationals in food preparation and to grow trees for pulp paper. A few days ago, Burger King joined a long list of MNCs that have cut off business ties with Sinar Mas:

Environmentalists on Saturday praised Burger King's decision to stop buying palm oil from an Indonesian company accused of destroying rainforests. The U.S. hamburger chain giant — which recently sealed a deal to sell itself for $3.26 billion to 3G Capital — said Friday that it was canceling its contract with PT Sinar Mas Agro Resources and Technology over concerns it had not adopted sustainable farming practices.

It cited an independent audit that found the company's plantations had violated several regulations, including planting in some peatland swamps and secondary forests. "These practices are inconsistent with our corporate responsibility commitments," Burger King said in a statement on Facebook as it joined a growing list of multinationals that have broken ties with Sinar Mas.

Burger King did not say what its alternate source of palm oil — used for frying — would be. The environmental group Greenpeace, which has accused Sinar Mas companies of tearing down forests that are home to orangutans and other endangered species, welcomed the move. Bustar Maitar, the group's regional forest campaigner, urged other major corporate consumers like Cargill, Pizza Hut and Dunkin' Donuts to do the same.

Jatna Supriatna from Conservation International Indonesia sees the move as a lesson for Sinar Mas and others companies that have destroyed the tropical forests that are home to endangered wildlife and act as a filter to absorb carbon dioxide, a key cause of global climate change. "They should not just be aggressive in expanding plantations without allotting their revenues for the forest restoration," Supriatna said Saturday. "The government has to stop them."

Indonesia is the world's largest producer of palm oil, a cheap commodity used to manufacture cooking oil, margarine, cosmetics and biofuel. Sinar Mas said in a statement it was disappointed with Burger King's decision, but would work hard to convince the U.S. company that it was committed to sustainable practices. Unilever, Nestle and Kraft Foods also have recently broken ties with Sinar Mas.

And speaking of Cargill, the Ecologist recently commented that it is not committing to severing business ties with Sinar Mas:

The billion-dollar agribusiness giant Cargill is refusing to cut its ties with an Indonesian palm oil supplier who has admitted illegally clearing forest...Nestle, Kraft, Unilever and Burger King have stopped trading with the Sinar Mas group after an independent audit of its operations found it broke Indonesian law by clearing land before any assessment had been made of its conservation value.

[Sinar Mas] has also been accused of trying to cover-up the critical report by initially claiming it cleared them of destroying peatlands or forests of high conservation value in Indonesia...

[Cargill] said it was encouraged by the group's commitment to 'taking corrective actions and to strengthening its standard operating procedures'. It also says it is aiming to buy 60 percent of its palm oil from Roundtable for Sustainable Palm Oil (RSPO) certified growers by 2010. Sinar Mas is currently aiming for all its existing growers to become a RSPO certified by 2015.

Greenpeace has criticised such commitments as unforceable on the ground. It said Cargill would now become the focus of its campaigning against the illegal forest and peatland clearance undertaken by Sinar Mas. 'We will not stop until Cargill has stopped trading with Sinar Mas,' said Greenpeace Indonesia forest team leader Bustar Maitar.

Aside from this episode occurring in my backyard, I hope that keener readers familiar with American business notice the difference between the likes of Nestle and Burger King on one hand and Cargill on the other: Cargill is privately held, and hence more able to withstand pressure applied by activists from organizations such as Greenpeace. Lessons here cut both ways: NGOs may need further strategizing when aiming to achieve compliance by those whose ownership is concentrated and less likely to bow to public pressure. They don't scare as easily. At the same time, firms doing business with questionable CSR implications may be better off not listing on the stock exchange.

Read More

Qadhafi's Son Speaks @ LSE; Brawl Erupts

♠ Posted by Emmanuel in Middle East,NGOs at 5/27/2010 12:34:00 AM

Once more during this very eventful week, it's interesting times on the LSE lecture circuit. It may not be known to many outside of (or even in) the UK, but the favoured son of Moammar Qadhafi by his second wife, Saif al-Islam Alqadhafi, completed his PhD in global governance here at the LSE. His thesis concerned The Role of Civil Society in the Democratization of Global Governance Institutions: From ‘Soft Power’ to Collective Decision-Making? Many believe that Alqadhafi is the likely successor to Moammar Qadhafi. Given the emphasis of his research, you will not be surprised to find out that he is broadly reformist in outlook. The London Times even combed through his thesis in search of clues about the future of Libya (assuming he takes the mantle of leadership). Let's just say his doctoral studies were more eventful than mine:

While other doctoral students struggled to survive with occasional lecturing, the multimillionaire Libyan was also negotiating the release of the Lockerbie bomber and $1.5 billion compensation for his victims, opening up his country’s oil and gas fields to international businesses and restoring diplomatic links with the US.

Dr Gaddafi, 37, introduces his work by writing: “I shall be primarily concerned with what I argue is the central failing of the current system of global governance in the new global environment: that it is highly undemocratic.” The comments will be read with interest in Libya, where his father has ruled since a military coup in 1969 and where opponents are still ruthlessly suppressed. Dr Gaddafi says that his dissertation “analyses the problem of how to create more just and democratic global governing institutions”, focusing on the importance of the role of “civil society”.

“Citizens in undemocratic states emphasise that they are not represented in the decision-making process of the IGO [intergovernmental organisation],” he writes. “Even if their governments are represented in some capacity, because their governments are authoritarian, abusive and unrepresentative of their people’s real interests. Others emphasise that even democratic states fail to consult adequately with their own citizens regarding their positions in international negotiations.”

In light of his favourable impression of the LSE, he also made a gift of £1.5 million to our sister Global Governance programme. From our school paper, The Beaver (our mascot):

The LSE has accepted a donation from a Libyan non-governmental organisation headed by Saif Al Islam Al Gaddafi, LSE alumnus and son of the Libyan leader Muammar al-Gaddafi. The donation from Gaddafi International Charity and Development Foundation (GICDF) amounted to £1.5 million and was intended to support LSE Global Governance.

In a press release from the School, it was stated that LSE Global Governance “has produced pioneering work on global governance, shifting debate away from the role of individual governments in global affairs to far-reaching analysis of the framework of principles, rules and laws necessary to tackle global problems”.

“This donation will support us as we work to increase understanding of global problems and to encourage interaction between academics and policy makers,” said Professor David Held, a co-director of the centre along with Professors Mary Kaldor and Danny Quah in the press release. “It is a generous donation from an NGO committed to the promotion of civil society and the development of democracy.”

The GICDF “carries out developmental and humanitarian activities in the social, economic, cultural and human rights fields”, as described on their website. It has been praised in particular for its work in supporting human rights for Libyan citizens.

In 2004 Amnesty wrote that the “organisation has made strong calls for long-term human rights violations, including deaths in custody, to be addressed.” This appears to tally with arguments made by Professor David Held in the Council meeting on the Foundation’s donation where he argued that the Foundation’s stance on both democracy and human rights had sometimes led to disagreement with the Libyan state but nonetheless had enjoyed success in areas such as penal reform.

Despite his reformist orientation (and the foundation being independent of the government), Saif al-Islam Alqadhafi perhaps cannot just yet escape the shadow of his father. Indeed, he has not distanced himself fully despite his doctoral work, especially by helping secure the release of the convicted Lockerbie bomber al-Megrahi. Indeed, things came to a head just this Tuesday as scuffles broke out prior to the talk between pro- and anti-Qadhafi forces. Like in many other places, Libya has a fairly sizeable diaspora community here in the UK:

One man was injured during scuffles between pro- and anti-Libyan government groups last night outside a London School of Economics building during a speech by the son of Libyan leader Colonel Gaddafi. Police were called to the incident, in Lincoln's Inn Fields, after angry exchanges between the placecard waving demonstrators and a pro-Libyan government group. No arrests were made. The injured man was treated by ambulance officials, but was not taken to hospital.

The Washington Post has a profile of its own of Saif al-Islam Alqadhafi. Take your pick: you can listen to Alqadhafi speak via podcast or video. I myself haven't had the opportunity to do so as I went to another event but will do so shortly. As I said before, there is just so much happening that you cannot attend them all.

Read More

Brazilian Megadam: US Celeb Activists 1, Gov't 1

♠ Posted by Emmanuel in Bretton Woods Twins,Development,Environment,Latin America,NGOs at 4/16/2010 12:16:00 AM

The construction of megadams has long been controversial and has served as constant fodder for those interested in IPE, development, and/or the environment. In the seventies and eighties, the World Bank was constantly criticized for promoting the construction of megadams from voices in civil society. The arguments against these megadams are well-rehearsed: (1) they are costly and not particularly efficient means of generating energy; (2) they disrupt indigenous peoples' lives by removing their sources of livelihood (like fishing) or forcing relocation; and (3) they cause significant ecological damage by disrupting river flows, industrializing irreplaceable rainforests, and so on. Civil society has played a role in drawing attention to the ecological consequences of these megadams. In particular, the World Bank has since soft-pedalled their construction and reduced funding for them accordingly. If you're interested, Susan Deakin had a neat article a couple of years back in the Journal of International Relations and Development on how this change of heart came into being that I much recommend.

An important thing to keep in mind, however, is that at the tail end of the megadam era, two came on to the drawing board. The first was China's Three Gorges Dam that I have covered in some detail in the past [1, 2]. The other is the main topic of today's post, Brazil's proposed Belo Monte Dam. FYI, Three Gorges Dam is by far world's largest dam; when it is fully operational it will produce 22,500 megawatts. The second is an earlier Brazilian project that is still very massive, Itaipu Dam, which puts out 14,000 MW. My cultured readers and classical music snobs (they aren't always the same ;-) are aware that composer Philip Glass was suitably awed by the scale of Itaipu as to compose excellent music about it. If constructed, the estimated output of Belo Monte will be 11,233 MW, making it the world's third largest dam in terms of output.

While it has proven to be effective to pressure the World Bank for funding these projects--it eventually decided against funding Three Gorges Dam as well as Belo Monte Dam--the governments of these countries have continued with plans to bring them to fruition. China's Communist Party being essentially immune to criticism, Three Gorges is there despite flooding historically rich areas and the rest of it. However, a drama is still playing out in Brazil over Belo Monte. The indigenous peoples have long been against this project as they are the ones who will be worst affected. In the 1990s, Belo Monte also became something of a cause celebre as none other than Gordon "I'll Be Watching You" Sumner (aka Sting) brought it to the world's attention [see this footage]. He's even made an analogy that if some banks are too big to fail, what more the rainforest? What is interesting now, of course, is that Brazil is now led by a former labour activist, President Lula, who one would expect to be more sympathetic to the voices of the poor.

Yet fast forward a decade and we have debates falling under similar divides. In early February, the Brazilian government's environmental analysis concluded that the project could go ahead and set the stage for bidding among construction firms. Yes, they have inserted all sorts of environmental qualifiers and other guidelines that must be followed, but at the end of the day, the government declared that the show must go on.

Enter our new batch of celebrity activists James Cameron (director of Titanic and Avatar) and Sigourney Weaver (the heroine of his Alien franchise). Not having seen the former two movies, I gather that Avatar deals with indigenous peoples being subject to the questionable mores of "development." There's even footage of Cameron visiting the site of the planned dam, the Xingu River. Now we have more recent news of yet another monkey wrench being thrown into this long-running saga as the judicial branch seems to have issues with Brasilia. From Reuters:

Brazilian judicial authorities have delayed an April 20 auction for the construction of the massive Belo Monte hydroelectric dam in northern Brazil, an official statement said late on Wednesday. The auction was put on hold by a federal judge in the state of Para where the dam is to be built, in order to examine petitions submitted by the public prosecutor which claim provisions for environmental protection at the site are inadequate.

The 11,000 megawatt project is expected to cost around 20 billion reais ($11.44 billion) but interest by the private sector has waned. Two major Brazilian firms said they no longer intended to bid as it was not financially attractive. The government is likely to appeal against the decision at a federal tribunal in the country's capital, Brasilia.

The injunction was issued after the first of two petitions submitted to judges was accepted as valid for consideration. "The (prosecutor's office) argues specifically that the construction of the (dam) will violate various provisions of environmental legislation, including lack of conclusive scientific data," the statement on a justice ministry website said. If the decision is upheld, Brazil's environmental agency Ibama will also be required to issue a new license for the project whose first phase is expected to be completed by 2015.

For now it's a draw. Having opened the project to bidding, the government has been stymied by concerned parties. And who will bid on this project now? More importantly, will the builder be able to stand up the civil society and environmental scrutiny this project will invariably bring? We'll see. In the meantime, Amazon Watch has a lot of information of use for those mulling where they stand on this important debate.

Read More

Shark Tales: Int'l Institutions Fail Overfishing

♠ Posted by Emmanuel in China,Environment,Japan,NGOs,United Nations at 3/25/2010 12:10:00 AM

In some ways, I am a reluctant environmentalist. If we lived in a world of infinite fish stocks and immediate replenishment, there would be no problem. However, I must draw the line when overfishing threatens extinction and collective action fails to do anything about it. A few days ago, I discussed how motions to limit overfishing of bluefin tuna--an increasingly affected species as the popularity of sushi and sashimi increase worldwide--failed before the UN Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES) in the face of Japanese opposition in tandem with source countries like Libya. Now we receive news that another proposed measure to limit the fishing of sharks has met a similar fate due to the objections of countries led by (surprise!) Japan. And don't forget the whales as it believes "domino theory" is operative in endeavours to limit fishing.

As with the bluefin tuna objections, these measures were voted down by those with vested commercial interests. The popularity of Japanese cuisine doesn't need much elaboration here. However, some of you may be less familiar with the popularity of shark's fin soup--an expensive delicacy served in Chinese restaurants. In China and Chinese diaspora communities, shark's fin soup is a prestige dish often served during wedding banquets and other important events to indicate the graciousness of the hosts. The economic rise of East Asia has meant greater demand for shark's fin from middle class consumers. However, environmentalists have long bemoaned fishing sharks for this dish as the fins are basically cut off and the rest of the shark is discarded. Here is a description from Reuters of its rising popularity:

One of the world's most expensive food products, a bowl of shark fin soup can cost $100, with a single fin worth more than $1,300. Up to 10 million kg of shark fin is exported annually to Hong Kong by nearly 87 countries, according to Oceana, a marine conservation group. Demand for the soup has exploded in Asia, where an expanding middle class can now more easily afford a delicacy once reserved for the wealthy. Japan, Indonesia, Malaysia, Taiwan, Thailand and China are big shark fin consumers.

The net result is a noticeable decline in shark populations. Agence-France Presse has the post-mortem on how three out of four species marked for conservation have not made the grade; the only one making it is, to no one's surprise, that whose fin is not valuable:

The UN wildlife trade body slapped down a trio of proposals on Tuesday to oversee cross-border commerce for sharks threatened with extinction through overfishing, sparking anger from conservationists. The only marine species granted protection at a meeting of the Convention on the International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES) was the temperate zone porbeagle, a shark fished for its meat...

The shark species left exposed to globally unregulated commerce were the scalloped hammerhead, the oceanic white tip and the spiny dogfish. Millions of hammerhead and whitetip are extracted from seas each year, mainly to satisfy a burgeoning appetite for sharkfin soup, a prestige food in Chinese communities around the world. The US proposals were rejected by a narrow margin, opening the possibility that one or both could get a second hearing on Thursday when the 13-day conference ends.

Only decades ago, the two species were among the most common of the semi-coastal and open-water sharks. But incidental catch and demand for fins have slashed populations by 90 per cent in several regions. The fish are often tossed back into the water after their precious fins have been sliced away.

The scalloped hammerhead is listed by the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) as "vulnerable" globally, while the whitetip is "critically endangered" in the north-western Atlantic, and "vulnerable" elsewhere. Once the highest level of biomass in the Gulf of Mexico, the whitetip is 99 per cent depleted there today, marine biologist Julia Baum said.

Japan led opposition to the four measures, arguing that management of shark populations should be left to regional fisheries groups, not CITES. Conservationists counter that fishing for sharks is unregulated. "The problem today is not there is serious mismanagement of trade in sharks, as for tuna, but that there is no management at all," said Sue Lieberman, policy director for the Washington-based Pew Environment Group.

The proposals called for listing on CITES' Appendix II, which requires countries to monitor exports and demonstrate that fishing is done in a sustainable manner. The scientific panel of the UN Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) recommend protection for all the species except the spiny dogfish which, along with the porbeagle, was also voted down at the last CITES meeting in 2007...

And if you haven't figured out the arch-villain yet -

Many NGOs said that intensive lobbying by Japan played a critical role in the measures being shot down. "We see clearly now the Japanese motivation for opposing all these marine species proposals," said Anne Schroeer, a Madrid-based economist with Oceana. "For the whales, they say we are catching it traditionally. For the bluefin tuna, they say we are eating it. But for the sharks, there is nothing but pure economic interest." All told, a third of the world's 64 species of pelagic, or open water, sharks face extinction, according to a report issued last June by the IUCN's Shark Specialist Group.

It is all quite sad, really. While Japan always says it is interested in conservation, it always leads movements to thwart efforts designed to prevent overfishing. It's not very self-enlightened, methinks, and will ultimately backfire in the long run as doing nothing and fishing these species to extinction or near-extinction is a solution acceptable only to the Bjorn Lomborg set.

The issue here comes down to one familiar with limiting trade in controlled substances--reducing demand. Consuming and producing nations will, in the final analysis, go for their interests. Fortunately, there are recent efforts such as Shark Savers and WildAid's ongoing high-profile campaign in China to increase consumer education about the hazards associated with overfishing:

During 2007-08, WildAid developed and expanded its work to reduce demand for shark products, primarily in China. This campaign included television and billboard campaigns featuring leading Olympic stars pledged not to eat shark fin soup. The advertising featured the main stars of the Olympics Opening Ceremony, Yao Ming, who carried the Chinese flag for the Chinese team, Li Ning, who lit the giant torch and musician Liu Huan, who sang the official theme song of the 2008 Olympics.

In 2009, WildAid and Shark Savers have come together to amplify the impact of this awareness and education campaign in China to reduce consumption of shark fin soup. This campaign will utilize cultural, athletic, and business heroes of China, including basketball legend Yao Ming, to deliver a message proven to make shark fin soup socially unacceptable...

We, at Shark Savers, are very excited to be working with WildAid on this campaign. No where in the world can we affect as big a change in shark consumption habits than in China. We think that, together, we have the right skills, message, and elements to 'close the sale' with the Chinese public. It is an urgent time as shark populations continue to dwindle, but we think that there are signs of real hope. With the athletic and cultural heroes and prominent businessmen that are coming together for this cause, and the already-proven message, we think we may be at a tipping point in China on the issue of shark fin soup.

You can say that marketing led us into this mess, so (social) marketing should help lead us out of it. Ultimately, there is nothing culturally ingrained about having to consume this dish and there are substitutes for it using similar recipes. There is still a chance of limits being placed before CITES wraps up later today, but if not, curbing appetite for the dish is really the way to go in the absence of collective action.

And no, I don't eat shark's fin soup.

Read More

Good Fun: The Varieties of NGOs

♠ Posted by Emmanuel in NGOs at 7/22/2008 01:05:00 AM

The current issue of the European Journal of International Relations features an article by Norbert Gotz concerning how the field of International Relations (IR) has largely neglected non-governmental organizations (NGOs) in relation to more standard IR fodder. As the field of International Relations has been quite state-centric in the past--inter-national--there has been some debate on how these organizations should be entered into the mainstream study of IR. As Gotz so aptly describes, IR is marked by "Westphalian nomeclature." The paper is quite a good read even if I don't really agree that it's mainly a matter of definition via negative language claims ("non-government") which require consideration. In particular, I am struck by this rather gratuitous passage on the proliferation of NGO forms as well as NGO catchphrases on pp. 232-33:

Best established of the sub-concepts is probably the INGO, the international non-governmental organization. The same phenomenon as projected by the GONGO [government organized NGO] has been insinuated by the interpretation of NGO as standing for ‘next government official’. Interestingly, there are multifarious subconcepts that question the non-governmental character of NGOs. Similar in content to the GONGO are the GINGO, the government-inspired NGO, and the GRINGO, the government regulated/run and initiated NGO. To a somewhat lesser degree, sub-concepts such as QUANGO (quasi NGO), PANGO (party-affiliated NGO), RONGO (retired officials NGO), DONGO (donor-organized NGO), DINGO (donor international NGO), and CONGO (co-opted NGO) are also closely tied to the sphere of government. However, the acronym CONGO is also used to denote both the Conference of NGOs in Consultative Relationship with the United Nations and commercially oriented NGOs, which brings us to the field of BINGOs (business interest NGOs), BONGOs (business-organized NGOs) and the MONGO (my own NGO), terms used to pin down for-profit or individual private interest NGOs. Both MONGO and MANGO can be used to denominate mafia(-organized) NGOs, but the latter acronym has been given several meanings and might also stand for manipulated NGOs or, value-neutral, for Macedonian NGOs.

Given this background, it is hardly surprising that the Tuvalu Association of NGOs is not unrivalled in using the acronym TANGO. While a regional anchoring is open in character, most of the sub-concepts mentioned above obviously exhibit tension vis-a-vis what still seems to be the main association with the plain concept of NGOs, namely the PINGO (public interest NGO) in general, and the RINGO (religious international NGO), the ENGO (environmental NGO), and the NGDO (non-governmental development organization) in particular. A specific variant of the latter is the Development Justice and Advocacy NGO (DJANGO). The acronym NGO has facetiously been interpreted as standing for En-J-Oy in regard to the staff of aid-receiving organizations, alluding to their special privileges that are unavailable to the surrounding communities. Similarly, such an interesting bird as the FLAMINGO, the ‘Flashy Minded NGO (representing the rich)’ has been suggested for adaptation.

Read More