Examination of Witnesses (Questions 56
- 59)
MR NICK
MABEY, DR
PAUL JEFFERISS
AND MR
PETER HARDSTAFF
TUESDAY 9 NOVEMBER 1999
Chairman
56. Good morning, and thank you for coming this
morning. Thank you also for your memoranda, which we have looked
at with great interest, which have set out your position. Thank
you for being willing to come together in one group which helps
us to get through the various groups who have made representations
to us. Could I ask you, first of all, whether there is anything
you would like to say by way of an introductory statement, or
anything you would like to update us on since you sent your memoranda
to us?
(Mr Mabey) First of all, could I thank the Committee
for inviting us to give oral evidence. It is always good to be
able to explain a long memorandum in person. I would like to make
a few introductory comments to lay out the bare bones of what
WWF's position is. Firstly, WWF is against the European Union's
Millennium Round proposal, for the main reason that we do not
think a good set of agreements over such a wide scope could be
negotiated in the time allotted; and we do not feel the WTO is
the right place to negotiate several of them, including the agreement
on investment. On the environment specifically, although the EU
has a lot of nice words on paper, we do not think it is prepared
to achieve that at Seattle or beyond Seattle at the moment. We
do not see any signs that it is preparing to prepare to achieve
its shopping list, and there are several things which are not
on its environmental shopping list. We feel there is a real lack
of understanding of the balance of liberalisation and regulation
needed as we go forward into the next Millennium, and the importance
of moving forward on the regulatory side to balance the deregulatory
side. Finally, we think there is a real lack of parliamentary
oversight in all countries, in the UK, in Europe, in the Union
itself and overseas; and that is one of the main reasons for the
disconnect the public is feeling between the WTO, the decisions
made in its name there, and their concerns on environment, on
labour and development. That is probably the biggest challenge
for Seattle in terms of the Member States, to try and re-engage
with their public. There has been quite a lot of new information
which has come out since we submitted our memorandum in between
the bluster and rhetoric leading up to the negotiation. There
are four points: firstly, there has been a lot of rhetoric about
developing countries objecting to environmental issues. We have
seen more of the detail of their positions, and there is a wide
range of views both for and against what might be called a broad
set of environmental proposals inside the Millennium Round. There
are certainly a lot more developing countries in favour of certain
provisions (especially on the reduction of damaging subsidies
and the protection of multilateral environmental agreements) than
you would imagine from some of the statements you will hear. Often
India and Egypt, who are most anti everything on the environment,
are most often heard, whilst some of the African and Asian countries
are not so loud about it. Secondly, the United States has become
rather clearer in its position. It is supportive of work on fisheries
subsidies and agriculture. It looks like it is not going to be
supportive of work on multilateral environmental agreements, eco-labelling
and the precautionary principle, and there is a 95 per cent. certainty
on those positions now.
57. Their position has worsened, in your view?
(Mr Mabey) Some of the ambiguity has been taken out.
We are seeing that the US is not that interested in covering the
rules-based environmental issues in the next Round. The WTO has
produced a Trade and Environment Report, which we think moves
the debate forward. It has, however, put the secretariat in a
bit of a problem with some of the Member States. We think this
is something which should be welcomed as moving some of the rhetoric
we have seen in the past in the Trade and Environment committee.
Hopefully, we will comment on that in more detail in our evidence.
Finally, the unseen partner (business) in the negotiations has
come up with some very strong statements about the precautionary
principle and its objections or fears relating to it. In many
ways, what we see as a dangerous proposal to minimise conflict
between the US and the EU—by having an early-warning system
to discuss issues (especially around the environment) where there
is a dispute—that could be conflict resolution in a positive
sense; but we feel it is more about politically covering up real
problems with the rules in order to let the Seattle Round move
forward. That does not solve the underlying problems but is just
a cover-up. The question is, on issues like the EU Directive on
electronics, on recycling, how is the public going to know what
the impact of that dialogue is on the regulation; where is the
openness; where is the transparency on what they are talking about—this
nice dialogue between EU and US officials over so-called conflict?
Those are more movements on the business front.
(Dr Jefferiss) We would like to start by welcoming
the Audit Committee's inquiry into this important issue, and thanking
you for the opportunity for the RSPB to give evidence. We think
it is vital for the UK Parliament to increase its oversight of
international trade policy; and this inquiry is very definitely
a positive step in that direction. To state things simply: our
overarching comment is that goal of the WTO and the upcoming negotiations
must be better trade in the pursuit of sustainable development
and quality of life, and not the pursuit of purely freer trade
per se. That statement sounds fairly obvious, logical and
commonsensical, but it does not appear to be the direction in
which the WTO or the negotiations have been heading. Nevertheless,
Mr Caborn made several remarks in his presentation to the Committee
last week that seemed to echo our beliefs, and we would like to
draw the Committee's attention to those remarks. For example,
we are concerned that less developed countries may not have the
capacity to negotiate meaningfully across a broad range of issues
of the kind that will be contained in the sort of comprehensive
Round the EU has been pushing for. Mr Caborn, however, said, "I
think there are some doubts as to whether they could handle that
comprehensive Round". If that is the case, therefore, we
would recommend that capacity continue to be increased but that,
in order to do that, it will take time and the scope of the proposed
negotiations and the format of the proposed negotiations should
be narrowed. Another concern we have is that TRIPs is a flawed
instrument that needs revision, especially where the provisions
of TRIPs conflict with those of the Convention on Biological Diversity.
The EU is generally pushing for no extension of implementation
deadlines on TRIPs and no review of the agreement. However, Mr
Caborn said, "With TRIPs, or any other area people believe
they have a legitimate grievance against, I think it would be
foolish to say it is set in tablets of stone". He went on
to say, "To allow part of the decisions made in Uruguay not
to be put on that agenda would be foolish in my view". Finally,
we are concerned there should be an explicit recognition of compatibility
between MEAs and WTO, and removal of WTO competence on trade-related
provisions in multilateral environmental agreements. On that issue
Mr Caborn said, " There may well be areas where we say if
MEA has certain conditions laid down in it [and by `certain conditions'
he seemed to be referring to trade related measures in MEAs] then
we would actually take that out of the operation of the WTO".
In conclusion, we would welcome all of these statements, or at
least seek clarification if we have misunderstood what Mr Caborn
was saying.
Chairman: Thank you both very much indeed.
Those were extremely helpful comments, if I might say so, very
clear and focused. Can we just go back to Dr Jefferiss' initial
remarks about better trade and freer trade.
Mr Robertson
58. You have touched on one or two things I
was going to ask about. In terms of actual international trade
policy and sustainable development, is there necessarily conflict
there in your view?
(Mr Hardstaff) We feel that the conflict really lies
in the actual objectives that are being pursued. I think it is
very important to stress that the current perception and perhaps
the current way that liberalisation is being pursued at the moment
seems an end in itself; whereas we very much see it as a means
to an end. As an example with the current agreement on agriculture,
the objectives of that agreement are progressive and substantial
reductions in support and protection; whereas we think an agreement
on agriculture, to manage trade and agriculture, should be focused
on providing a framework for promoting sustainable agriculture,
food security, and safe, healthy food people want to eat. With
those objectives, we think the negotiations would produce different
results. At the moment the WTO's current objectives very much
frame the negotiations as a fight between protectionism and liberalisation,
rather than managing trade. We see the current objectives as being
flawed.
(Mr Mabey) I think the recent report from the WTO
secretariat put it well when it said that simple generalisations
about the positive or negative relationship between trade and
the environment do not hold; that it is complex and needs to be
discussed case by case. A good quote from the UK Sustainable Development
Strategy is: "where economic activity is unsustainable, trade
can act to magnify this, increasing pollution and depletion of
natural resources such as forests, fish and other wildlife".
In the context of an agriculture Round and moves on forests and
fisheries, one would expect that the complexities must be looked
at in an empirical way actually on the ground. It comes back to
looking for a more focused approach, as the RSPB said, on the
outcomes rather than this sterile debate about liberalisation
versus protectionism.
(Dr Jefferiss) It is also worth adding that a trade
system can only be truly socially, economically and environmentally
sustainable if it has the full meaningful participation of all
the affected parties; and at present that simply is not possible
and requires protracted capacity building before we can get to
that stage.
59. Given the WTO's mandate and remit, is that
the organisation to pursue the goals you have?
(Mr Mabey) I think the question is a bit of a chimera,
because the governments who are the members (it is a membership
organisation) have a mandate under their commitments to the Rio
Summit to pursue those objectives. Therefore, their actions at
the WTO should be fully consistent with those objectives, and
they should be making the linkages. There has been a sleight of
hand in shifting responsibility, as if the WTO itself is an organisation.
It is just a secretariat with a set of rules. The responsibility
lies with the members, and they are not living up to their responsibilities
to balance the objectives which they have signed up to.
(Mr Hardstaff) I think there is a general misconception
that many environmental and/or development NGOs would like to
turn the WTO into a general international organ to enforce environmental
policy. I do not think this is the case. Certainly the RSPB is
looking not to make the WTO's remit broader, but to ensure that
its objectives and the way it operates does not conflict or adversely
impact on the ability to formulate effective environmental and/or
developmental policy. We are not looking for an extension of the
WTO's remit, but we are looking to ensure that what it does do
is pursue the sustainable development agenda to which its members
have signed up in a range of other international instruments.
|
