In principle, the idea that legislation should be introduced
to ensure that goods on sale in the UK have been produced in a way which
does not encourage or promote deforestation is a sound one. The particular
approach being proposed by the UK has a number of major flaws however, not
least that it depends on the production of raw materials to be ‘in accordance
with local legislation’. In states where ‘local legislation’ is either
non-existent, badly defective, or hopelessly unenforced as a result of them
exercising their own sovereignty, it creates a massive loophole which makes it
look more like a gesture than a serious attempt to protect the rainforests. I’m
sure that a desirable outcome could be assisted by UK legislation, but it would
involve a willingness not only to have an independent international arbiter
rather than depend on ‘local legislation’ to determine whether the rainforests
are being damaged by producing the relevant products, but also to demand,
effectively, that companies operating elsewhere which are selling into the UK
market would have to abide by the same rules. It’s a clear instance where
legislation in one country will never be enough to prevent environmental damage
happening on the other side of the world – countries need to co-operate and
work to common rules to ensure change. The UK could lead on this - if it really
wanted to do more than make gestures.
In completely unrelated news,
it seems that the negotiations over a trade deal with the EU are foundering
largely because the UK government considers it utterly unacceptable that the EU
should expect third parties (such as the UK) to abide by its rules in relation
to issues such as environmental protection, rather than recognise that, as a
sovereign state, the UK has the right to set its own rules independently of
anyone else, and equally unacceptable that whether it is complying with rules
should be determined by anyone other than itself.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment