January 21, 2000 | OPINION | BY HECTOR ROGELIO TORRES We have failed in launching a broad new round of talks to liberalize world trade. But in spite of this, negotiations to further liberalize trade in agriculture are to start at the beginning of this year.
According to the European Union's position at the World Trade Organization summit meeting in Seattle last month, Brussels may try to smuggle the so-called precautionary principle into those negotiations.
This principle was consecrated at the Earth Summit held in Rio de Janeiro in 1992. It states that. "Where there are threats of serious irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty shall not be used as a reason for postponing cost-effective measures to prevent environmental degradation."
Current WTO rules do not prevent countries from using the precautionary principle. The Sanitary and Phytosanitary Agreement (SPS) prescribes that when relevant scientific evidence is insufficient, governments can provisionally adopt SPS measures on the basis of available pertinent information.
Governments are only obliged to seek the additional information necessary for a more objective assessment of risk and review the SPS measure within a reasonable period of time.
Many countries, and particularly developing countries, feel that this provision already gives enough flexibility for governments to deal with scientific uncertainty.
Although SPS measures should not provide extra protection for the local industry, they can very effectively serve as protectionist devices -- and because of their technical complexity, they are remarkably difficult to challenge, particularly for developing countries.
Producers always prefer to avoid competition in order to increase their profits. For this reason, the SPS is designed to encourage countries to use international standards where they exist.
But, although this is the core rule, governments still preserve their right to use measures that result in higher standards if there is scientific justification.
They are only required to avoid arbitrary or unjustifiable distinctions in the levels of protection, if such distinctions result in discrimination or a disguised restriction on international trade.
When international standards are absent, governments can determine the appropriate level of sanitary or phytosanitary protection based on assessment of risks and taking into account available scientific evidence. This means linking a cause with an effect, unambiguously.
Unfortunately, it is virtually impossible to prove the opposite -- namely, to prove the lack of causal linkage between two events. That is because it could take an eternity to search the universe to prove, unambiguously, the lack of a causal relation for all cases.
Consequently the process of seeking to prove that a product is innocuous has to be limited because the zero-risk scenario is, even theoretically, impossible.
Summing up, the precautionary approach is a qualified exemption. It constitutes the exception to the exception, and should only be used with extreme prudence and, yes, precaution.
Governments are partisan actors on international trade. Therefore the precautionary principle should be carefully preserved from trade ministers, who are normally susceptible to domestic rent-seeking lobbies. It should be strictly the last resort, never the first option.
Measures eventually adopted on the basis of the precautionary principle should be credible. They should be proportionate to the risk, and should not be more trade-restrictive than necessary; otherwise, they could be just tailored protection for a local industry.
Moreover, ignorance and scientific uncertainty should not be equalized. Not all situations of insufficient scientific evidence justify the use of the precautionary approach. The simple ignorance of the cause should not be used to overrule risk assessment, nor to legitimize a trade measure.
There should be a principle of proof. And governments, particularly rich governments, should actively seek to obtain additional information for a more objective assessment of risk and a periodic review of the SPS measure.
Finally, regulatory processes should be transparent and open to scrutiny. This is not only necessary to be fair to trading partners, but also to restore trust in government pronouncements about food safety.
Public trust was badly eroded after the BSE outbreak -- the so-called mad-cow disease crisis -- in Europe, not to forget aflotoxins in Belgium and the use of human excrement to feed animals in France.
During the next agricultural negotiations, developing countries will seek to obtain better market access for their products. They will seek the opportunity to compete fairly in the marketplace, not by subsidizing exports, but by lowering prices and improving quality.
If the precautionary principle is smuggled into those negotiations, it will be traded against those expectations. And this should be prevented.
Hector Rogelio Torres is a member of Argentina's foreign service. His views are his own.36546:
