Inside US Trade - Vol. 18, No. 35
Representatives of the U.S. private sector are seeking to limit the scope and effect of future environmental assessments of trade agreements, which the Clinton Administration has proposed, with some agricultural groups arguing that the new policy should not have a binding impact on U.S. negotiating objectives. They also questioned whether measures to mitigate the environmental impacts of trade should be included in trade agreements, according to comments on draft guidelines for implementing the Executive Order calling for the assessments.
Industry, agriculture and environmental groups submitted comments on such questions as who should conduct the assessments, whether the assessments should be focused on environmental impacts outside of the U.S. including global impacts, and to what extent they would influence the outcome of negotiations for trade agreements and existing U.S. laws and regulations.
One key issue that remains to be resolved by the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative is whether an environmental assessment would be conducted on the possible outcomes of ongoing World Trade Organization negotiations on agriculture, an industry source said. A U.S. trade official was non-committal on that issue when the guidelines on implementing the Executive Order were unveiled in June.
The Executive Order mandates environmental assessments for agreements in the natural resources sector, though that mandate has been challenged as discriminatory in submissions by mining and forestry industry groups.
Environmental groups are arguing for expanding the scope of such assessments and want the guidelines written into regulation so that the procedures followed by the U.S. would be legally reviewable. Comments submitted by Friends of the Earth call for environmental assessments of both the agriculture talks and services negotiations at the WTO.
Environmental groups' submissions seek to strengthen the influence the environmental assessments have on U.S. negotiating objectives, and to widen the scope so that there is a presumption for studying global impacts, whether or not trading partners agree with that such assessments are necessary.
The Center for International Environmental Law also argues that the guidelines should identify what current and proposed local and national environmental laws could potentially conflict with trade agreements. Policy options in the event of such conflicts should include modifying trade agreements or even foregoing entering into such agreements, CIEL says.
The Humane Society proposes that the guidelines be promulgated as binding federal regulations, making them subject to the Administrative Procedure Act.
Agriculture representatives fear the environmental assessments could strengthen the position of WTO members who oppose liberalization of agricultural trade, such as the European Union, which have resisted the liberalization of agricultural trade arguing that consideration should be given to the non-economic benefits of agriculture, like preservation of the environment.
Because of these concerns, some agriculture representatives are raising the possibility of a congressional effort through the appropriations process to deny funding for the assessments, one agriculture industry source said. There is currently no congressional effort to do that, according to the source.
A joint submission by 35 agriculture and food processing groups, including the American Farm Bureau Federation, Monsanto, and commodity groups, argues that the results of the assessment should not bind policy makers to a specific position. "Instead, the results of the review should serve as an advisory tool to be considered by U.S negotiators and should not be used as mechanism to modify U.S. laws, regulations or policies," the submission states.
In addition, the results should not be a binding criterion on which ratification of the trade agreement is based.
Reviews should be conducted by independent, scientific panels appointed by USTR, the groups argue. That proposal is meant to limit the influence that the White House Council on Environmental Quality would exercise over the reviews, an industry source said.
Both agriculture and industry groups insist in their comments that the reviews be based on "sound science" and decry language in the guidelines they claim opens the door to assessments involving "qualitative guesses rather than sound science based measurable outcomes." Specifically, groups objected to language calling for assessments of environmental impacts that "might" come about in the "foreseeable future."
"This opens the door to the concept of the 'Precautionary Principal (sic)' as proposed by the European Union to be used to stop movement of goods," according to a submission by the Wheat Export Trade Education Committee, U.S. Wheat Associates and National Association of Wheat Growers.
The wheat producers' comments claim the guidelines jeopardize the efforts of farmers to gain access to unfettered world markets. Specifically, the emphasis on environmental goals will drive trading partners away from the negotiating table and will overburden USTR with the conduct of the reviews and could compromise the confidentiality of the negotiations.
The submission opposes the idea that measures to mitigate environmental impacts should be written into trade agreements, and instead asks that the guidelines be changed to state that " 'only measures outside the trade agreement' should be considered to address environmental impacts."
"If these guidelines were to be implemented at all, we would urge USTR and CEQ to do so with as few negative implications for trade negotiations as possible," the submission says.
Agricultural groups were united with industry associations in seeking that the guidelines limit assessments of environmental impacts outside the U.S. or risk impinging on the sovereignty of trading partners.
Industry groups, including the Business Roundtable, the United States Council for International Business, the National Association of Manufacturers and National Foreign Trade Council, also questioned whether the environmental assessment would impose cumbersome bureaucratic processes on U.S. trade negotiators.:
