|
Friday,
6 July
Session
III: Trade and Environment
Moderator:
David Runnalls — President, International Institute for
Sustainable Development
The WTO has been organizing occasional symposia on trade and
environment for almost seven years and during that time, the agenda
has remained consistently the same. The Chair reflected on why this
is so.
First,
there is still a debate over whether environment belongs on the WTO
agenda at all while other international organizations, such as UNEP
and the MEAs, exist to resolve environmental issues. But environment
is already embedded in the WTO through the sustainable development
clause in the preamble, the provisions of the TBT agreement, Article
XX of the GATT and in a number of other places. It has figured
prominently in many reports of the dispute resolution panels.
Finally, sustainable development is a response to the integration of
environment and economics which we see in the form of climate
change, ozone depletion and the loss of biological diversity.
Second,
there is a continuing fear on the part of many developing countries
that a new form of protectionism is emerging - that of green
protectionism.
Third,
it was pointed out that international discussions of sustainable
development have been characterized by the existence of two parallel
agendas. The "northern agenda" of climate change,
biodiversity and deforestation and the "southern" agenda
of market access, debt relief, technology transfer and increased
official development assistance existed side by side as long ago as
the Earth Summit in 1992 and efforts to bridge the gaps through the
so called "Rio bargain" have been a failure.
Finally,
many in civil society are suspicious of the motives of Trade
Ministries and the WTO. They often characterize the latter as
opaque, too open to influence by economic interests and
uncomfortable with environmental issues.
With
this as an introduction, the group proceeded to the issues raised by
the panelists.
On
Multilateral Environmental Agreements (MEAs) and WTO Rules:
-
Trade
is only one of the tools that can be used to address
environmental concerns
-
MEAs
are a comprehensive package that must include
financial/technology transfer and capacity building. Many
developing countries are finding it impossible to meet the
obligations imposed by the increasing numbers of international
environmental agreements
-
It
is important to reflect on the distinction between unilateral
vs. multilateral approaches to addressing environmental
concerns. Unilateralism is a major concern of developing
countries
-
The
legitimacy of trade sanctions as a tool to enforce MEAs needs
discussion
-
Fines
for non-compliance or non-adherence to MEAs could be an
alternative to trade sanctions
-
Some
questioned whether the US would "free-ride" on the
Kyoto Protocol and the Convention on Biological Diversity, and
whether difficult disputes on the failure to internalize
environmental externalities (particularly in the Climate Change
context) could come to WTO
-
Forum
shopping is a problem in the trade and environment area, and
discussion is needed on where to bring disputes – to the WTO,
or to MEAs
-
Process
and production methods (PPMs) are at the heart of the trade and
environment debate, and it is important to reflect on them
-
The
principle of "common but differentiated
responsibility" as well as special and differential
treatment in the context of WTO rules are important
-
MEAs
are more successful, and less subject to potential challenge in
WTO, when their membership is broad
-
There
is a need for good environmental governance, and some questioned
whether enough is being done in MEAs
-
The
establishment of an intergovernmental panel on the WTO-MEA
relationship was proposed
-
Some
stated that there is a need for political commitment to
resolving the MEA issue in Doha
On
Process and Production Methods (PPMs)/Genetically Modified Organisms
(GMOs)/Labelling:
-
There
are many different perspectives from which PPMs can be examined:
the legal/policy perspective and the economic/trade perspective
-
Non-product
related (NPR) PPMs are of greater concern to the trading system
than those that are product-related
-
There
is no clear answer in the WTO on NPR-PPMs
-
There
is tension between the use of life-cycle analysis (LCA) in
ecolabelling schemes and the rules of Agreement on Technical
Barriers to Trade (TBT)
-
Internationally
agreed PPM-based standards could be a potential solution to the
PPM debate. WTO Agreements themselves promote the use of
international standards
-
There
are important questions before WTO Members which the members
themselves should resolve rather than leave to the WTO's dispute
settlement mechanism. The "judge" should not be
assigned a policy-making role
-
Countries
must decide on the fora in which to address these issues. Today
numerous instruments address GMO labelling: the WTO Agreement,
the standards of the Codex Alimentarius Commission, and the
Biosafety Protocol.
-
The
concept of "mutual supportiveness and deference" can
play an important role in trade and environment discussions,
allowing each international organization to focus on what it is
competent on, without trying to assume the role of the other
-
The
role of scientific uncertainty in decision-making needs
discussion, and our decision-making structures need to
reconsidered. The IPCC was mentioned as perhaps the most
successful solution to this dilemma
-
The
precautionary principle could play a role in risk management,
but it is important to define what is meant by precaution and
how it can apply in a trade context. The need to consider the
opportunity cost of chasing after uncertain risks is also
important to take into account
On
Market Access; Agriculture and Fisheries:
-
There
is a need to change governmental priorities. The problem of
overfishing cannot be addressed without political will
-
It
was pointed out that this political will existed prior to
Seattle and had the Ministerial come to successful conclusion,
the progressive reduction of most fisheries subsidies could have
been part of the outcome
-
The
removal of fisheries subsidies is a good example of a
"win-win-win" situation for developed and developing
countries
-
Fisheries
subsidies already fall within the mandate of the WTO.
Notifications are an important instrument to use to keep track
of subsidies and very few countries actually notify their
fisheries subsidies
-
More
WTO disciplines could be needed to address the sustainability
aspects of fisheries subsidies
-
Some
pointed out that subsidies can be good for the environment, and
tariffs and subsidies could be needed to ensure the viability of
the fisheries sector
-
Some
stated that the FAO is the appropriate forum for discussing
fisheries subsidies and that it is too early for the WTO to get
involved in this area
|
|
