Examination of witnesses (Questions 240
- 259)
TUESDAY 21 MARCH 2000
MR PETER
STEVENSON, MR
DAVID BOWLES
and MR CHRIS
FISHER
240. Right.
(Mr Stevenson) It is not unreasonable to say, therefore,
with imported pig meat or eggs we also want to go beyond labelling.
If we have taken an ethical decision within our own territory,
the EU, why should we not also be entitled to make the same judgment—
241. Because that would be imposing our value
judgments on a group of other people who do not share them.
(Mr Stevenson) With respect, as David said earlier,
we are often told "you are trying to impose your value on
others", but I do not believe that is so. At the moment we
have a situation where others are able to impose their values
on us. We, the EU, have said we believe that battery cages are
cruel—
242. But a labelling regime would prevent them
doing that or imposing their values on us because we would have
the choice then with full information to distinguish between the
two products and decide on that basis. That would rebut your argument.
(Mr Stevenson) Why should we be in a situation where
within our own territory we have said it is sufficiently cruel
to want to prohibit it rather than just leaving it to individual
consumers but vis a" vis imported produce we take
the lesser step of labelling?
(Mr Bowles) We already do that. The GMO agreement
states that there will be mandatory labelling but we can still
block the imports if we feel—
243. If we can demonstrate a health ground.
(Mr Bowles) It is not just a health ground.
244. Or biodiversity ground.
(Mr Bowles) It is also about consumer concern as well.
The Commission has said very clearly that they accept there are
two stages, the scientific risk assessment and the consumer risk
assessment. They would be prepared to block imports based on the
consumer risk assessment.
Mr Marsden
245. Can I turn to alternative approaches to
securing animal welfare gain. Would you urge the Government to
increase existing animal welfare standards in this country unilaterally?
(Mr Bowles) I think the example of what has happened
with the pig industry means that it would be very, very difficult
to ever imagine the UK unilaterally increasing its standards if
the EU has not.
246. That is not answering the question, with
due respect. Would you still urge, regardless of what the UK Government
thinks it could actually achieve or whether it could actually
succeed at it, would you still press for improvements?
(Mr Bowles) The RSPCA would press for improvements
on an EU wide level.
247. So not unilaterally. Okay. Can I then turn
to what you said in the written evidence, this is the RSPCA. "There
are already a number of international and bilateral agreements
concerning animal welfare, but none of these are global in character."
Specifically, what efforts do you think you and the Government
should be undertaking to develop multilateral agreements on animal
welfare issues?
(Mr Bowles) I have already explained about some of
the problems with the multilateral solution but, given that, the
RSPCA is exploring avenues and we are actually talking to countries
about setting up a meeting to look at developing a multilateral
solution. We have had meetings with the UK Government over the
past year to encourage them, through their Commonwealth links,
to also put out feelers to other countries to do that. We think
that the multilateral solution is not a solution in itself. You
need to do a two-track approach. It is a parallel approach to
the other things that are happening like the green box discussions,
like labelling. We do not discount it but what we do not want
to happen is for the WTO to say "you are going in negotiating
with 100 countries on a multilateral solution, therefore we will
wait until you come up with that multilateral solution" because
we could be there for ten years.
(Mr Stevenson) On the multilateral question I agree
with everything that has been said. The Government is a little
bit naughty about this at the moment. Standard letters that emanate
from the Ministry of Agriculture talk about how the Government
is thinking carefully as regards some sort of steps to begin to
take these things forward on a multilateral level, the concerns
about animal welfare. I do not know what those steps are. They
keep saying it but I have not seen evidence of them yet. Again,
we would be delighted if this Committee could put pressure on
the Government, on the Ministry of Agriculture and the DTI to
really begin to approach some of our key trading partners outside
the European Union to try to get some sort of multilateral standards.
Again, I want to emphasise that they should not be seen as a substitute
for reforms to the WTO rules.
(Mr Bowles) It does seem strange that in discussions
we have had with the Government, the Government are basically
saying to us "why don't you, the NGO, go out and make sure
that this multilateral solution happens" and they are not
actually doing anything themselves. I think the Government should
take responsibility. If they are in there arguing within the EU
to raise standards they should then take responsibility for the
outcome of those standards.
248. So what you seem to be saying is there
should be a lot more talking about animal welfare standards but
it ultimately still has to go through the WTO in terms of formal
agreement in global terms?
(Mr Fisher) No, absolutely not. I think nobody would
suggest that animal welfare standards should be set within the
WTO. You do very much need to distinguish these two issues. Let
us talk about political realities here. We have a big programme
of multilateral discussions and any standard which is likely to
be agreed will almost certainly be less than the standards we
already have in Europe. You can take that as read. From the WTO
point of view it does not solve any of your problems about what
differences there may be in your standards and somebody else's.
From an animal welfare point of view globally it could be important.
However, if a standard on animal welfare is set at a somewhat
global level it could also become a WTO problem because if you
want to introduce a labelling scheme, or some other measure, and
there is an international standard, generally WTO rules set a
higher burden of proof on you to justify why you are setting your
standards higher than the internationally agreed scheme. So there
could even be situations where it may be in your interests not
to conclude an international agreement. Again, that shows you
some of the strange outcomes of WTO rules sometimes.
Mr Paterson
249. Is it not better to have some advance at
world level so you do get a world animal welfare gain than to
do what the Swiss have done which is to take a radical step, have
no animal welfare gain at all and 60-70 per cent, according to
your submission, of eggs come in from over the border at lower
standards?
(Mr Fisher) That was true beforehand anyway. We do
not advocate raising standards here if it is just going to lead
to a downward welfare standard overall. However, we need to be
in a situation where we as a sovereign nation, as part of the
European Union, can continue to raise our standards, not just
on animal welfare but on other issues too. The WTO, which is meant
to be in favour of sustainable development, should facilitate
that. This is why we come back to these arguments that trade rules,
if applied in a different way, could facilitate the so-called
win-win outcomes. The way they are set up at the moment, unfortunately,
seem to be encouraging countries not to raise their standards.
The idea that we sit and wait for the world to catch up is really
somewhat fanciful. Let us forget Botswana, the idea of going into
negotiations with the US on farm animal welfare standards and
thinking that we can reach some kind of sensible agreement with
them in the next five years is frankly a political non-starter.
Those are the realities and, therefore, we have to find a way
whereby a diversity of standards can be accepted within the WTO
trading system.
Mr Jack
250. You have wandered into the world of the
dispute process so let me give you a little bit of rein to tell
us how you would like to see it improved.
(Mr Fisher) It is not so much the disputes process.
Obviously, like all NGOs, we favour increased transparency. We
would like the opportunity to be able to submit amicus briefs
and possibly even to make representations as we have made to you
here. I just compare this process with the WTO process. The WTO
process is very non-transparent and those people who have legitimate
viewpoints to make are not always able to make them. The WTO process
would be assisted in that sense, and need not be overwhelmed but
assisted in some cases. However, the fundamental question is not
so much to do with the dispute settlement mechanism itself but
it is to do with the WTO rules. Therefore, unless there are some
changes in terms of how PPMs are looked at, how Article 20 exceptions
may be interpreted, some legal guidance and political guidance
given, then the likelihood is that the dispute panels will continue
to produce the kinds of results that they have so far which, to
paraphrase them, have typically been that everything is possible
in theory, but in every particular case it has been against the
rules. You can always imagine a situation where it could be done
but in reality it never is done. One other point to say on the
dispute settlement mechanism is that there is also this rather
bizarre outcome of the sanctions that follow if there is a case
which is not agreed. You have only got to look at beef hormones
where, in fact, the volume of trade has now decreased as a result
of the sanctions that are being put in place, plus purely innocent,
totally unrelated sectors are being punished for something they
have no control over and are losing money and are going out of
business. These sanctions are being applied in a very political
way. There is a strong argument to say that in that sense the
dispute settlement mechanism is not working effectively and it
is not, if you like, giving the punishment that fits the crime
and is not providing an appropriate mechanism for reconciliation.
(Mr Stevenson) I think I too would feel that the key
problem is not the process of dispute settlement but the need
to get some sort of reform to the rules. At the moment we have
a treaty and it is the dominant piece of international law in
which trade liberalisation is the only concern. Surely we are
entitled to ask that there is a rethink about that treaty so that
other legitimate public policy considerations are not always being
wrecked by the WTO Treaty? The Council of Agriculture Ministers
themselves last year said that an appropriate balance has to be
struck between trade and non-trade issues. Animal welfare is one
of a number of non-trade issues. I do think we need to get reforms
and I do not think those reforms will really be meaningful unless
they in some way relax the position on PPMs. Maybe there needs
to be a revisiting of Article 20 on the general exceptions which
were first created all those years ago expressly for what I have
been talking about, to allow other legitimate public policy considerations
some sort of breathing space within the trade liberalisation rules.
Those have been interpreted in dispute panels so restrictively
as to be almost meaningless.
251. In terms of Seattle, what roles respectively
did Compassion in World Farming and the RSPCA play? Did you go
to Seattle yourselves?
(Mr Bowles) Both Chris and I were in Seattle. I think
it is very important to stress that we were working towards Seattle
for about a year beforehand building up the arguments on animal
welfare with the Commission and with the Member States. I think
the impetus from the Commission's position occurred during the
Finnish Presidency, who we had extensive meetings with, and also
with, as it was then, DGVI, which decided to take this seriously.
We have elaborated our concerns and our solutions both with the
political people and obviously we were in Seattle talking to the
three European Commissioners and the UK delegation that was there.
252. You have not, for example, been to see
the WTO itself in Geneva?
(Mr Bowles) Yes, we have, many times.
(Mr Fisher) Including the Director General.
(Mr Bowles) Including the ex-Director General and
we have a meeting arranged with the current Director General as
well.
253. Did you talk to any of the other major
groupings, for example the Cairns Group, about your concerns?
(Mr Fisher) Both in Seattle and outside as well, particularly
with the US and with the Cairns Group. That is what I based my
comments on about issues such as the green box. I do not see any
fundamental opposition to some of these, it is just a question
that they doubt the political motive. We should have reason to
doubt the political motives of the Americans in the Cairns Group
as well, so there is mistrust on all sides. I think the key new
thing which came out of Seattle was this question of developing
countries. This was given as the reason as to why the issue could
not be discussed in Seattle and why the words "animal welfare"
had to be removed from the text. When you actually scraped beneath
the surface this was not the result of many, many developing countries
beating their path to the door of the chairman of the committee
but the chairman of the committee took the view that it was the
straw that broke the camel's back in terms of the atmosphere that
was going on in those particular discussions and, therefore, advised
the European Union that it would be best to remove the words "animal
welfare" in the knowledge that they could raise it at a later
stage when the negotiations began. However, I think post-Seattle
we have recognised that we not only now have to convince European
policy makers, we have to put some of our own efforts, and only
this week I was with the agriculture attache of Brazil in Brussels
chatting with him, into having a dialogue with some of these other
countries to see where they stand on these issues, particularly
the developing countries. I am clear in my own mind that while
there may be some specific points to consider in terms of developing
countries, the real issue is what the US and what the Cairns Group
think on these matters.
254. In your ability, both organisations, to
get your message across it sounds as if you have pretty good access
to the key opinion formers as far as the WTO level and indeed
at the Commission level. Would that be a correct assessment?
(Mr Bowles) I think it is a correct assessment to
say that we have had reasonable access at a Commission and a Member
State level. The whole process has been one of a catch up process.
Chris mentioned earlier that he thought the Commission and the
EU went into the negotiations quite ill-prepared because there
had not been enough discussion in the pre-meetings in Geneva and
I think that is also true with us. Our objective was to get the
EU to take animal welfare on seriously and our objective now is
to go to the Cairns Group, to go to the developing countries,
to the USA and discuss it with them as well.
255. One final question. Mr Fisher obviously
demonstrates an expertise and I note he is down there on the list
as "consultant". Mr Fisher, where did you acquire your
knowledge about the WTO?
(Mr Fisher) It is a much abused term, "consultant".
It usually means that you know just that little bit more than
your clients. My background is animal welfare, and has been for
the last 15 years. I acquired my expertise on WTO the hard way,
by learning from scratch. I am not a lawyer, I am a policy person.
I have started at the beginning with the famous book and all the
other things and worked my way up over the last five years of
gathering knowledge.
Mr Mitchell
256. When it comes to developing countries we
are still open to the jibe that we care more about the welfare
of our animals than their people in the sense that maximising
living standards is more difficult if there is this kind of discrimination.
(Mr Fisher) That is an easy jibe to give and whether
it holds any water depends on how we and how the European Union
conducts itself in its negotiations. There are lots of fine words
about developing countries, much of it is, what do they amount
to in trade terms?
Chairman
257. One sentence.
(Mr Stevenson) You have totally thrown me by saying
that.
Mr Jack
258. That is a sentence.
(Mr Stevenson) Many of our supporters, most of our
supporters, care as much about developing countries as about animals.
I do not believe that what we are talking about would damage developing
countries. Indeed, intensive agriculture is not a helpful system
for them as it threatens not just the environment and human health
but poverty alleviation for those countries, it is really not
the right way forward.
Chairman
259. A good point. Thank you very much indeed.
The definition of a "consultant" is somebody who is
there to tell the business to do the things it knows it must do
but only believes it if somebody else tells it.
(Mr Fisher) That is probably quite true.
Chairman: Thank you very much indeed.
|
