Tímarit Máls og menningar - 01.05.2012, Page 53

Í s l e n s k s t j ó r n v ö l d o g u m h v e r f i s v e r n d a r s a m t ö k
TMM 2012 · 2 53
stjórnvalda í upphafi að upplýsingar um lifandi auðlindir sjávar [fiskstofna] yrðu hluti af
matinu. Þessi afstaða Íslands er tilraun til að koma í veg fyrir að unnt verði að nota GMA sem
tæki til að stjórna fiskveiðum á alþjóðlegum vettvangi. Sendinefnd Íslands á fundinum fyrir
ári gerði ítarlega grein fyrir þessum sjónarmiðum, en talaði fyrir daufum eyrum. Fyrir fund-
inn í ár var ljóst að afstaða ríkja til þessa hafði ekki breyst. Var því ákveðið af hálfu íslenskra
stjórnvalda að Ísland myndi ekki taka þátt í fundinum að þessu sinni. Þess í stað var skjali þar
sem lýst er afstöðu Íslands til málsins dreift í byrjun fundarins sem opinberu skjali S.þ.“ Skýrsla
fastanefndar Íslands hjá Sameinuðu þjóðunum um starfsemi 59. allsherjarþingsins 2004 / 2005
http://www.utanrikisraduneyti.is/media/Skyrslur/UN2004-5.pdf. Vef síða sótt 1. febrúar 2012.
42 Á vettvangi Sameinuðu þjóðannar er talað um Global Marine Assessment, eða Assessment
of Assessment gefur ekki til kynna að matið takmarkist við mengun. Sjá: http://www.unga-
regular-process.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=11&Itemid=11. Vef síða
sótt 1. febrúar 2012.
43 Sjá http://www.utanrikisraduneyti.is/media/Raedurogerindi/Opnunarrada_GRAME.PDF.
Vef síða sótt 1. febrúar 2012. Fram kemur að „The main recipients or end-users of the products
of the regular process are national governments and intergovernmental organizations at the
global and regional levels. M.ö.o. ekki frjáls félagasamtök. Ennfremur, segir að „… the aim
of the process is to support existing governance mechanisms by providing information which
is relevant to policymaking, but not prescriptive of what policies should be adopted. In other
words, our objective in setting up the regular process is neither to supplant nor to complement
existing governance mechanisms, but rather to reinforce them. For that reason, care should be
taken not to encumber the institutional framework unnecessarily through the setting up of
costly, complex and duplicative procedures.“ Í stuttu máli er átt við að hnattrænt mat á ástandi
lífríkis sjávar skuldbindi ríki á engan hátt til að gera eitt eða annað.
44 Forystugrein Washington Post 3. desember 2006:
Blame Iceland
A tiny country that still hunts whales scuttles an effort to save the ocean bottom.
Sunday, December 3, 2006
IN A FORM of fishing known as bottom trawling, huge, weighted nets are dragged across
the ocean floor, destroying corals and just about everything else in their path. In U.S. waters,
the practice is tightly regulated -- and forbidden in certain environmentally sensitive areas. On
much of the high seas, however, it‘s open season. Delicate ecosystems get ravaged with nobody
paying attention. The Bush administration, along with several other governments, has been
pushing for a moratorium on unregulated trawling on the high seas. Last month, thanks in
large part to Iceland, it failed to get that measure.
Iceland did not act alone in preventing a ban: Russia, Japan, China and South Korea joined
in. Iceland‘s embassy, in a statement, said it „strongly objects to claims, made by some envi-
ronmental organizations, that it was in the forefront of blocking consensus“ to ban deep-sea
bottom trawling. The denial is disingenuous. In closed-door negotiations, Iceland, along with
Russia, took a particularly vocal and aggressive stand against strong action.
Because the arcane rules of high-seas fishing are largely defined by consensus, even small
countries that are genuine moral outliers in world attitudes toward oceans can prevent agree-
ment. The result in this case was a mushy resolution that fell far short of what the administration
and environmental groups wanted, which in turn is ominous for efforts to protect marine life
in international waters. The world‘s oceans are heading toward environmental collapse, which
only bold action will avert. It‘s hard to imagine that happening if a country that hunts whales
and has a population smaller than Washington‘s can help block a common-sense proposal to
safeguard the ecological health of the ocean floor.
45 The Future We Want – Zero draft of the outcome document,
Sjá: http://www.uncsd2012.org/rio20/index.php?page=view&type=12&nr=324&menu=23.
Vef síða sótt 18. janúar 2012.