Letter: Whitehall ignores Rio summit findings on ocean pollution
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.Sir: Having heard reports of the attempts of the UK delegation to scuttle a resolution on the protection of the oceans at the meeting of the International Whaling Commission (IWC) in Kyoto, I was dismayed to read John Gummer's letter (15 May). He calls on Norway to work with the international community on environmental issues and attempts, by a selective portrayal of the situation within the IWC, to juxtapose Norway's legitimate position on the sustainable use of whales with prime minister Gro Harlem Bruntland's renowned leadership in international protection of the environment.
In Kyoto, the UK asked Norway to withdraw a draft resolution of the Nordic countries seeking to draw attention to the problems of marine pollution. The Whitehall view was that such problems were being dealt with adequately in other forums. This assertion flies in the face of the conclusions of the Rio Conference on Environment and Development, where the serious threats of land- based pollution are identified and
it is acknowledged that there is
no global scheme to address such pollution.
Moreover, the statement served as a reminder of the UK role in preventing agreement among the European nations on a permanent ban on dumping of radioactive wastes at sea. At Kyoto, the fear of having to vote against the Nordic proposal, thereby exposing the inconsistencies in the UK environmental policy, apparently caused Mr Gummer's delegation to join in the consensus. Could it be that Mr Gummer's service to the environment is confined to cost-free public statements?
Those countries whose very survival depends on a healthy marine environment can only hope that Mr Gummer will respond to the call
of the IWC and work to remove the notorious threats to the oceans that fall within the jurisdiction of his government.
Yours faithfully,
JON BALDVIN HANNIBALSSON
Minister of Foreign Affairs
Reykjavik, Iceland
17 May
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments