Thursday 24 April 2014
Advertise  |  Subscribe  |  Register  | 

Close

About cookies: we use cookies to support features like login and sharing articles. Keep cookies enabled to enjoy the full site experience. By browsing our site with cookies enabled, you are agreeing to their use. Review our cookies information for more details.

EU should practise what it preaches

By Barbara Slee, International Fund for Animal Welfare, Brussels  -  07.02.2013 / 03:50 CET
The EU's transparency in an international forum.

You have recently carried a range of articles on transparency in the European Commission (“Stoiber allegations are unfounded”, 24-30 January), the European Parliament (“Parliament's cash payments send out wrong signal”, 24-30 January) and the lobbyists' register (“EU publishes transparency report”, EuropeanVoice.com, 27 November 2012).

For a different perspective and comparison, your readers might be interested to know about the EU's transparency in an international forum.

In 2010, the EU put forward a comprehensive proposal to reform the International Whaling Commission (IWC), the international body responsible for the conservation of whales and the management of whaling.

Improvements in transparency were a major part of that proposal, which was successfully adopted. The proposal included making sure that the positions of IWC members and communications to IWC commissioners would be placed on the IWC website.

At the 2012 IWC meeting, Denmark (representing Greenland) proposed increasing its whaling for aboriginal subsistence purposes. This was rejected by the IWC. Recently, the EU responded to a letter from Greenland about Greenland's desire to kill whales without the approval of the IWC. It kept its response private.

In contrast, Australia and the Latin American countries have – correctly – made their reactions available on the IWC website.

The manner of the EU response runs completely counter to its own proposal at the IWC for transparency. Also, the EU's own transparency initiative (from 2005) stresses the importance of a “high level of transparency” to ensure that the Union is “open to public scrutiny and accountable for its work”.

Given the danger that member states may be planning whaling without IWC approval, and the importance of an open debate, the EU response should now be put on the IWC website.


© 2014 European Voice. All rights reserved.
Varrow

Most viewed in Environment

Time for root and branch reform? You need an active subscription to read this article

The annual ‘European Tree of the Year award' was held at the European Parliament last week, honouring the best in arboreal achievement.

entre_trees_270314
LETTERSHumpback(baleen)whale

Related articles

The annual ‘European Tree of the Year award' was held at the European Parliament last week, honouring the best in arboreal achievement.

European Commission plans to draw up a list of plants and animals that have a negative impact on the environment.

British MEPs say the voluntary label goes against Commission promise to reduce EU red tape

There are currently more than 12,000 non-native species in Europe.

The Southern United States have a “troubling history of land degradation” too.

Advertisement

Comments

 

Your comment
Please note: The fields followed by an asterisk (*) are obligatory fields

Comment*

Name*
E-mail*
Website

Please, copy the code on the left into the box on the right

 I accept the Terms & conditions
 I would like to share my e-mail & website

Advertisement

Cookies info | Privacy policy | Terms & conditions