The preparations in order to launch a new round of negotiations at the WTO, the so-called Millennium Round, are now well on their way. The European Commission has already published its communication on 8 July 1999; the Council, the Member States and the European Parliament are formulating their positions in the coming weeks.

We, the Greens in the EP, are extremely skeptical about the intentions behind the EU Commission's desire to launch a Negotiation Round which goes well beyond the areas formerly agreed upon. Indeed, instead of limiting themselves to the commitments made at the end of the Uruguay Round (i.e. on agriculture and services), and instead of focusing on the social and environmental impact of the trade liberalisation that has already been set in train by existing WTO agreements, the European Commission has set a much more far-reaching programme which will integrate into the WTO new areas such as investment, competition and government procurement.

We oppose the enlargement of WTO competences, until the WTO and its agreements have been subject to profound review and reform.

Therefore, we support and have signed the "Statement from Members of International Civil Society Opposing a Millennium Round or a New Round of Comprehensive Trade Negotiations", signed by now by 1009 organisations from 77 countries.

WTO reform should, in the first instance, include the following aspects:

• the Dispute Settlement Mechanism (DSM) needs radical reform, so that it is no longer weighted in favour of the richer countries and their transnational corporations (TNCs). It must be prevented from jeopardising existing social and environmental legislation. Longer term, we would like it to be externalised so that the WTO no longer acts as judge and jury and so that other international legislation is given equal weight.
• the precautionary principle should not only be placed in the preamble of the WTO framework agreement, but enshrined in all sectoral agreements together with adequate enforcing mechanisms. Health and environmental safety is more important than trade;
• agreements on agriculture and fisheries: food and water security is a fundamental right and has to be the guiding principle. Further liberalisation of the agricultural sector is in the interest of an expanding agri-business and threatens local economies, especially subsistence production, soil fertility and biodiversity;
• culture: any provision which aims at converting culture into pure merchandise, has to be banned from the WTO agreements.

The TRIPS (Trade Related Intellectual Property Rights) Agreement needs to be urgently revised, before all those WTO members which are currently exempted from it have to apply its provisions. We oppose efforts by the EU to extend TRIPS and we are firmly against the EU's intention to oblige new candidate countries for WTO membership, including developing countries (which host most of the world's biological richness), to adopt the TRIPS agreement ab initio. Furthermore, the ethical, health and environmental protection provisions in the TRIPS agreement must be strengthened. More than ever, patents on life forms have to be firmly excluded from the TRIPS Agreement.

There is a manifest lack of democratic legitimacy and transparency inside the WTO. Before any new negotiation starts, in-depth reform has to be undertaken, starting with access to documents and clarification of decision procedures and leading to the inclusion of social partners.

One of the most perverse aspects of the WTO is perhaps the fact that the WTO, the most recent in a series of multilateral agreements, is the only one to have an enforceable Dispute Settlement Mechanism. Yet this mechanism does not respect rules protecting the environment, social and labour rights, nor the right to develop enshrined in other conventions and agreements. Decisions often contradict provisions resulting from them, amongst others, the Kyoto Protocol, the Agenda 21, the Basle Convention or the UN Convention on Biological Diversity. This means that, once again, corporate interests are privileged, and the interests of individuals, and local, regional or national societies are left behind. Of course, this must be reversed. WTO reform must lead to the elimination of all obstacles to the maintenance and further development of social and environmental and animal welfare standards of the all countries.

The integration of all countries into the world market does not guarantee a fair share of wealth and benefits for everyone. On the contrary, it tends to reinforce inequalities both within and between countries, as well as to exacerbate irreversible ecological damage. Instead of driving all countries into the WTO, priority must be given to the safeguarding and development of local and regional economies. For many countries, and especially China and Russia, access to the WTO, in its present shape, would destabilize even more already vulnerable economies and would negatively affect the majority of their populations.

After the investiture of the new European Commission, the Greens in the EP expect a substantial change in its attitude concerning the WTO. Being the biggest trade bloc in the world, the European Union has an extraordinary responsibility for the future of the planet. We appeal to Mr. Lamy, new commissioner in charge of the WTO dossier, to consider substantial changes in the Commission position for Seattle, to reopen a debate on this and to give his assurance, before the Ministerial Meeting in Seattle (30.11.-3.12.99), that the existing multiplicity of points of view, societies and resources be heard, respected and guaranteed.