Aquatic biota Kuwait states that its claim for loss of aquatic biota includes loss of ecological services provided by the subtidal areas.

Claim No. 5000460 Loss of natural resources Claim No. 5000460 comprises three claim units, with a total asserted value of USD 967,831,391, for loss of ecological and human services resulting from damage to or depletion of terrestrial, marine and groundwater resources.

Recommended award for claim No. 5000460 81

Thirdly, grievances must be addressed, damages assessed and steps taken to address those damages.

A preliminary examination of these claims revealed that some, but not all, of the Kuwaiti companies in issue had filed claims with the Commission, which were being processed as E4 claims.

Kuwait seeks an amount of USD 16,599,464 to establish a shoreline preserve as compensation for the loss of these services.

In the view of the Panel, Saudi Arabia has not submitted sufficient evidence to establish the nature or extent of the crop losses suffered by Shadco or to support its estimation of crop losses that it claims Shadco suffered.

Furthermore, Saudi Arabia has not produced sufficient evidence to establish that the crop losses were a direct result of Iraq's invasion and occupation of Kuwait.

But today I speak with a heavy heart, grieving over the losses my people have suffered as a result of the devastating tsunami of last December.

Iraq further asserts that compensation for loss of service from road use is not warranted and that the continued use of these roads is a benefit that Saudi Arabia has not taken into account in quantifying its damages.

The first claim unit is for terrestrial damage the second claim unit is for damage to intertidal shoreline habitats the third claim unit is for damage to marine subtidal habitats the fourth claim unit is for losses of wildlife resources the fifth claim unit is for economic and ecological losses related to fisheries resources and the sixth claim unit is for two other compensatory projects.

Taking these factors into consideration, the Panel finds that the loss of terrestrial natural resources claimed by Kuwait is overstated.

Kuwait seeks an amount of USD 574,200,000 to establish a shrimp raise and release programme as compensation for the loss of aquatic biota.

The Panel, therefore, concludes that Kuwait has not provided sufficient evidence to establish loss of groundwater production at Raudhatain and Umm Al Aish.

Iraq further argues that Saudi Arabia's use of land area as the measure for quantifying ecological service losses and gains is inappropriate.

Iraq also states that Saudi Arabia's estimate of 100 per cent loss of ecological function over the alleged area of damage is not substantiated.

Saudi Arabia states that there was loss of marine turtles, but it does not claim compensation for that loss.

According to Kuwait, those remediation projects are not intended to account for losses to natural resources flows during the time period between the injury to and the recovery of the resources to a baseline state, whether naturally or by virtue of the proposed remediation projects. Kuwait further states that, in quantifying its losses in ecological services, it has taken into account the impacts which remediation measures would have in mitigating the losses.

The Panel, therefore, concludes that Kuwait has not provided sufficient evidence to enable the Panel to quantify the magnitude of any lost biomass.

The Panel finds that a coastal preserve would provide appropriate compensation for the loss of shoreline resources resulting from Iraq's invasion and occupation of Kuwait.

For example, the Panel is unable to verify Kuwait's input values for the computer model used to estimate lost biomass, particularly data on quantities of aquatic resources.

Based on the data submitted by Saudi Arabia, the Panel has made appropriate adjustments to Saudi Arabia's estimate of the extent of service losses and to other aspects of the claim, as indicated below.

The Panel therefore finds that Saudi Arabia has not provided sufficient evidence either to establish the extent of the crop losses in the Al Hassa region or to demonstrate that any such losses occurred as a direct result of Iraq's invasion and occupation of Kuwait.

Saudi Arabia states that the crop losses, when looked at together with the veterinary explanation of the animal losses, appear to be related to the pollution caused by fallout from the oil well fires, although it acknowledges that this cannot be definitively demonstrated at this stage.

Iraq's general contention is that the model predictions of subtidal sediment contamination used by Kuwait to estimate biomass losses are not reliable.

Iraq states that, although there may be some permanent loss of seabirds, shorebirds and possibly marine mammals, the extent of the loss is uncertain.

The claim for damage to marine mammal resources is based on information from the published literature, which provides counts of animals killed from late February through mid April 1991.

The Panel, therefore, finds that Saudi Arabia has not provided sufficient evidence to establish that the livestock losses in the Al Hassa region occurred as a direct result of Iraq's invasion and occupation of Kuwait.

Fourth claim unit Wildlife resources Saudi Arabia seeks compensation in the amount of USD 127,165,335 for loss of marine and coastal wildlife caused by the oil spills resulting from Iraq's invasion and occupation of Kuwait.

The Panel sent several requests to Saudi Arabia in which it was specifically asked, inter alia, to verify and substantiate the amounts claimed in respect of the crop losses.

Saudi Arabia proposes to establish 10 terrestrial nature preserves in unaffected areas to compensate for the loss of terrestrial ecological services from the time of the alleged damage until full restoration of services.

With regard to the process and methodology used by Saudi Arabia to quantify the loss resulting from damage to its terrestrial resources, the Panel finds that Saudi Arabia's approach is reasonable.

The Panel sent several requests to Saudi Arabia in which it was specifically asked, inter alia, to verify and substantiate the amounts claimed in respect of the livestock losses.

Claim No. 5000463 is for damage to or depletion of other resources and Claim 5000219 relates to damage to public health.

2.5 Although Portugal compensated its nationals for losses suffered in Portuguese territory in 1975 and 1976, Portuguese citizens who were dispossessed in Angola have not been compensated.

Jordan also claims an amount of USD 2,449,308,925 for additional natural resource losses that cannot be fully compensated by the proposed rangeland and wildlife preserves.

The Panel, therefore, finds that Saudi Arabia has not provided sufficient evidence to substantiate losses to its fisheries resources as a direct result of Iraq's invasion and occupation of Kuwait.

It is estimated that, in 2004, the impact of the embargo on Cuba's foreign trade was 822.6 million, which was 57.2 million higher than the total for the preceding year.

Iraq contends that the estimates of impacted areas, damage percentages and duration of damage on which Iran bases its claim are invalid and unsubstantiated.

Kuwait describes the steps taken in its application of HEA as follows quantification of the losses of the environmental damage to terrestrial resources determination of the size of the compensatory projects quantification of the gains from the compensatory projects and calculation of the cost of the compensatory projects.

The Panel is satisfied that the benefits which Saudi Arabia will gain from the restoration projects undertaken with the fourth F4 instalment award for Claim No. 5000455 will compensate for losses to terrestrial resources.

Iraq also questions Saudi Arabia's quantification of bird loss, stating, for example, that the number of lost sandpipers claimed is clearly in excess of the actual numbers that would normally be expected on the coastline .

The Panel sent several requests to Saudi Arabia, in which it was specifically asked, inter alia, to verify and substantiate the amounts claimed in respect of the crop losses.

Furthermore, the Panel does not consider that the fact that the effects of the loss of or damage to natural resources might be for a temporary duration should have any relevance to the issue of the compensability of the damage or loss, although it might affect the nature and quantum of compensation that may be appropriate.

Claim Nos. 5000309 and 4002545 relate to loss of agricultural resources.