Washington, D.C. | October 12-15, 1999
Statement of the Trade & Environment Working Group
With less than six weeks remaining before the Seattle Ministerial of the World Trade Organization (WTO), TAED participants from the European Union and the United States convened for the second time in Washington D.C. to engage in inter-NGO dialogue, as well as dialogue between NGOs and representatives of the EU and U.S. The TAED process was established and is financially supported by both the U.S. and EU as a forum by which civil society could provide environmental input into the transatlantic trade agenda. Despite numerous consultations between NGOs and governments, we are nevertheless disappointed the dialogue has not yet resulted in substantial progress. Our meeting of October 14th with government officials, and the October 7th draft WTO Ministerial declaration, have led us to conclude that there is not sufficient commitment from the EU and U.S. to negotiate progressive and strong environmental, sustainable development and animal welfare objectives for inclusion in the Seattle Ministerial declaration.
While we appreciate the proposals that have been tabled, no movement on environmental protection, sustainable development and animal welfare will take place in the WTO, unless the EU and U.S. - working together - are willing to put forth stronger substantive proposals and seriously press these issues onto the agenda. In addition, the EU and U.S. must demonstrate common leadership by addressing the overarching development issues of concern to both the governments of developing countries and NGOs alike, including scaling back some proposals for new trade liberalization.
While the EU has demonstrated willingness to address some key environmental issues and the U.S. has proposed a few institutional reforms and the elimination of some environmentally damaging subsidies, any efforts on these issues are impeded by lack of cooperation between the EU and U.S., as well as the continued unwillingness to compromise significantly on some of the commercial issues that are of great importance to developing countries. On the issue of transparency, we reiterate that the WTO is still far from being a transparent organization open to public scrutiny and participation, and parliamentary and legislative oversight. There is a strong lack of public confidence in the WTO which will only escalate between now and Seattle unless both the EU and U.S. take concrete steps to ensure that these issues and the substantive issues presented below, are included in the agenda at Seattle.
We reiterate our concerns set forth in our June 29, 1999, submission to the EU/U.S. Summit. We will continue to hold the U.S. and EU accountable to recommendations by tracking their progress in implementing and addressing each of the issues raised.
Deference to National Environmental Standards
Trade rules must be crafted so they do not diminish the environmental protections that nations provide for their citizens and resources. Each WTO member country must retain the right to develop and enforce high conservation measures, including through trade restrictions - even if they exceed the international norm - without running afoul of WTO rules. So as to avoid creating discriminatory barriers to trade with developing countries, technology transfers, support for institutional capacity building and access to cleaner production methods should be facilitated.
Precautionary Principle
The precautionary principle is an internationally recognized principle used for environmental and consumer health and safety protection. Any WTO analysis of environmental or consumer health and safety measures must include application of the precautionary principle. In this regard, the Member States should request that UNEP, in conjunction with public interest NGOs, develop a working definition of the precautionary principle. As a second step, the precautionary principle should be effectively integrated into the SPS and adopted as a legal instrument or principle within the context of Article XX exceptions.
Deference to Multilateral environmental agreements
Protecting Multilateral Environmental Agreements (MEAs) from trade challenge should be a priority for the U.S. and EU. WTO rules must be reformed to preserve from WTO challenge both existing and future MEAs that may have trade effects.
As a demonstration of good faith, the EU and U.S. should jointly announce an agreement to not challenge at the WTO, trade measures taken pursuant to MEAs. Finally, the U.S. and EU should not seek to insert WTO *savings clauses* in MEAs, which appears to be the current U.S. policy. These clauses elevate the legal status of the WTO over that of MEAs.
Production and Process Methods (PPMs)
WTO rules on process and production methods (PPMs) should be reexamined.
These rules should be clarified to allow governments to distinguish between products on the basis of the way in which they are produced and, if necessary, to regulate trade in products that are produced in a way that could impact negatively on the environment, animal welfare, human rights, and sustainable development. Particular attention should be given to confirming the WTO compatibility of eco-labeling schemes based on the life-cycle approach.
Investment
Investment rules should not be the subject of negotiations in the WTO. If a multilateral investment agreement is needed, about which at this time we are not convinced, governments should develop a framework within the United Nations system which includes investor obligations.
Subsidies
The current proposal to curb environmentally damaging subsidies is welcome. Both the U.S. and the EU should embrace and strengthen these proposals and add fossil fuels, forestry and nuclear power subsidies to the list of those in need of phase-out.
Dispute Settlement
The proposals for reform of the Dispute Settlement Understanding (DSU) promoting more transparent (and more participatory procedures) are positive responses to our concerns. We emphasize the need to include representatives of civil society in the dispute settlement process as well as substantive reform on the issue of burden of proof.
Trade Related aspects of intellectual property rights (trips)
In order to ensure that the TRIPS Agreement does not undercut protection of biological diversity and indigenous rights, the EU and U.S. should support a review of Article 27.3(b) of the TRIPS. This review should ensure deference to international agreements governing biological diversity and indigenous rights. In addition, a mechanism should be established within the context of the review process to incorporate the innovations and practices of indigenous peoples.
Sustainability Assessments
To guide trade negotiations, sustainability impact assessments (SIAs) of present trade agreements must be analyzed and environmental and gender ramifications of any future trade agreements evaluated before the agreement is concluded or implemented. The goal of SIAs and their open public review and comment period should be to provide accurate information on the environment and development impact of the proposed trade agreement and to suggest alternatives to eliminate negative impacts and enhance beneficial impacts of trade on the environment.
SIAs should become standard tools in U.S. and EU trade policy formulation and negotiation. The intent to make SIAs a standard process of WTO Member States and the WTO Secretariat should be clearly stated in the Ministerial Declaration.
In the context of the New Transatlantic Agenda, implementing an immediate bilateral EU/U.S. standstill on WTO challenges to environmental, sustainable development and animal welfare initiatives would demonstrate good faith and a willingness to push for strong provisions within the WTO Ministerial context. In addition, it would send a clear message to WTO Members regarding the scope of EU/U.S. commitment to these issues. Such a temporary standstill should continue in place until such time as these difficult issues can be satisfactorily resolved multilaterally.Washington, D.C.:
