Examination of Witnesses (Questions 160
- 179)
THURSDAY 11 NOVEMBER 1999
RT HON
MICHAEL MEACHER,
MP, MR DARRYL
BROWN AND
MR CHARLES
BRIDGE
Mr Shaw
160. I am sorry to sort of trip back a bit,
but we have heard about the Performance and Innovation Unit and
the work that your Department have been involved in in formulating
policy and indeed a number of different departments have been
involved in that. Then it goes to Europe and then the WTO, and
it is fairly straightforward when it comes to trade, but I wonder
if you can comment about when it comes to other services and investments.
We know that the DG for trade is responsible at the European level,
but is there a co-ordination between the two DGs, trade and environment,
for the preparation of the Round?
(Mr Meacher) I do not actually know the answer to
that specifically, but I would certainly expect that there is
to a degree which, again I repeat, probably did not occur over
the MAI when the Trade Directorate, I am sure, was quite clearly
in the lead. I repeat, I do think that the atmosphere, the need
to have a comprehensive Round, not just involving environment,
but also involving development—
161. If we are talking about an overarching
sustainable development approach, then surely there needs to be
some sort of integration of the strategy rather than there being
all the separate bits?
(Mr Meacher) Absolutely, and I am repeating that I
believe that that is what is happening. I think there is a much
greater integration than there has been before. There is a recognition
that whilst trade and Trade Ministers are in the lead, there has
to be a lead here, but, nevertheless, these other interests have
to be firmly integrated into that negotiating brief, and I believe
that at the EU level that is going to happen. I think that Pascal
Lamy, who is the EU trade negotiator, is extremely well aware
both of the environmental and developmental agenda which is part
of his brief and that trade considerations have to give proper
place to these other interests.
(Mr Bridge) Can I just add a word of specifics on
that as it may be worth mentioning that a lot of the work in developing
the EU's position has been carried out by an informal group of
trade and environment experts who meet from time to time in Brussels,
and the Trade DG and the Environment DG have always worked very
closely in that. They have always run the meetings jointly in
effect and have developed papers for discussion which have been
sometimes from the environment people and sometimes from the trade
people. I think it has been very much a double act, but, as the
Minister said, it is very different from what might have happened
a few years ago.
Chairman
162. Can we focus for a moment on the link between
Helsinki and Seattle. I know both of them are preparatory and
setting the agenda, but there is a concern which has been expressed
to us that again this is proceeding too fast in terms of the world
trade negotiations because Europe has not yet got its position
settled on environmental integration, for example, and the degree
to which this addresses sustainability questions, that we only
begin to do that at Helsinki and there is, therefore, another
argument, if you like, for postponing serious work on the new
world trade round, not only for stock-taking reasons, which Mr
Blizzard and Mrs Walley were talking about, but also to get a
proper co-ordinated European approach to these issues.
(Mr Meacher) Well, I would not say that Helsinki is
the start of this process. I would say it is another hopefully
significant milestone along the process. The UK Government did
start this in our Presidency at the Cardiff European Council in
June 1998 when for the first time the EU accepted the requirement
to integrate environmental considerations into all policy-making.
163. That is true, Minister, but there has been
the comment to us that there has been little leadership since
then, since the Cardiff Summit.
(Mr Meacher) Well, I think that there has been. We
have had since then summits in Vienna and Bonn and now Helsinki
and all of them, I think I am right in saying, have had this on
the agenda. We initiated the concept of the "green baton"
which we wanted to see handed on to successive presidencies. I
do think that the Finns have been keen to promote this. I do think
the Austrians and the Germans before accepted the principle and
did advance it. I do not think that Helsinki, valuable as I hope
it is going to be, is necessary before we can get agreement within
the EU on those overriding environmental principles. I think they
are already pretty well established. Okay, they can be further
entrenched and we can deepen environmental considerations in all
the other councils; after all, nine of the councils, agriculture,
energy, transport, industry, the Single Market—
164. Not trade.
(Mr Meacher)—development—
165. Not trade.
(Mr Meacher) Not trade, no, okay, but the General
Affairs Council, fisheries, and there is one more I cannot remember,
but it does not include trade and it is going to include trade
because all of the councils are going to be asked to produce one
of these reports which shows how they are integrating these considerations
into their policy-making. It is pretty firmly rooted in the EU
and I think the idea that we postpone a world negotiation because
the EU is not quite ready and the Trade Council has not yet produced
its report is a little bit the tail of the dog wagging the whole
animal. If we had not thought about this, I think I would agree
with you, but we have been thinking about this pretty hard for
the last two years and, okay, we are always incrementally taking
it further, but I do not think it is premature.
Mr Robertson
166. You have partly touched on what I was going
to ask, but this relationship between the international agreements
on the environment and those on trade, how would you describe
that relationship? Is there a relationship?
(Mr Meacher) I would describe it as very fraught.
The classic example is what happened over the Biosafety Protocol
negotiations which broke down at Cartagena in February of this
year. They broke down for three main reasons: one was the unwillingness
of the Miami(?) group to accept advanced informed agreement, and
this is about the transboundary movement of LMOs, living modified
organisms, and that was one issue; secondly, was the labelling
and documentation issue; and, thirdly, which is relevant to your
question, was because the Miami group, six countries or whatever
as opposed to the 160 who took a different view, insisted that
the Biosafety Protocol, if it was agreed, should be subject to
the WTO system, whereas the EU position was very clear and I am
absolutely convinced it was correct, namely that the Biosafety
Protocol and other MEAs should be on a par with the WTO system,
that neither should dominate or override the other and both have
their appropriate place. Therefore, whether you are looking at
the Montreal Protocol on ozone depletion, the Kyoto Protocol,
CITES on international endangered species, the transboundary movement
of waste, all of these should be able to override in terms of
the protection of the environment and they should not be subject
to the benefits of trade per se in principle. Now, that
is not the position at the moment. It is a very uneasy situation
where the trade measures which flow from these MEAs are increasingly
quite extensive and there is what is sometimes called the "chill
factor" where there is an inhibition on actions or trade
being developed for fear that it will come across WTO rules and
that is severely disadvantageous. The shrimp turtle case is often
quoted here, although the Americans actually lost the case not
because of conflict with WTO rules, but because they exercised
their environmental rights quite inappropriately in a discriminatory
manner. There is a real difficulty about this interface and we
really have got to resolve it.
167. Do you feel there is a need for an extra
body, which you could call the world environmental organisation,
for example, which could take in the World Trade Organisation,
it could take in the UN bodies, it could take in the World Bank
and the IMF? Do you see that there is a role for such a body and
would it help?
(Mr Meacher) I doubt it. We have always in the UK
been very strong supporters of UNEP, the UN Environment Programme,
based in Nairobi. We give it £4.5 million a year which I
think is larger than any other contributor outside of the United
States. It has a pretty broad and exclusive mandate and if you
set up an alternative body, I suspect that the mandate would be
like the Nairobi Declaration, very, very similar. If we were to
go through the enormous upheaval of replacing UNEP by a world
environment organisation or whatever, as the Germans at one point
favoured, I do think we would be distracting ourselves from dealing
with the real big global issues in order to carry through a lengthy,
protracted and highly conflictual attempt to reorganise the UN
system. Now, if UNEP were in a state of real collapse, I think
we would have to do that. I think it has been saved from collapse
by the appointment of a new Director, Klaus Topfer, who I think
is doing a first-class job and I do think UNEP has now revived.
My own view would be, just as we often say, that there is little
point in trying to reinvent the wheel and I think we should make
UNEP work better rather than trying to reinvent it.
Joan Walley
168. Could I just ask about TRIPs, not to Seattle,
but TRIPs in terms of the UK's position and the EU position on
the scope of the review of TRIPs because the Trade Minister, when
he gave evidence to us, suggested that to rule out looking at
contentious agreements from the Uruguay Round was foolish, and
it seems to us to be important that we do need to have this review
of TRIPs and that it is inconsistent with the Convention on Biological
Diversity. What are you actually doing to make sure that we resolve
those conflicts?
(Mr Meacher) The TRIPs agreement—Trade Related
Intellectual Property Rights—clearly by definition is going
to be part of a comprehensive round. We do support a review of
Article 27 in particular of TRIP which is about the patenting
of diversity. I think the important consideration here is that
the Convention on Biological Diversity does uphold the principle
of national sovereignty over the management and exploitation of
biodiversity. I believe that is right, that is the fundamental
principle. If there is conflict with that in TRIPs then I would
take the view that TRIPs needs to be brought into line with it.
Our view is that is not the case but certainly we would not resist
a full and careful analysis of the relationship between them.
The important point is that biodiversity, which is exceedingly
precious and often irreplaceable, must be a matter primarily in
the end for national governments, not for the exploitation of
other interests. There again need be no conflict between the two.
This is going back again to the need to get a better interface
between the MEAs and the WTO system, including TRIPs.
169. Will that be one of the items you would
want to be included in the principles which you will be setting
out at the start of the agenda on Seattle?
(Mr Meacher) Either to make explicit reference to
it or to have it understood that was encapsulated by some of the
wider principles.
Dr Iddon
170. Is this not getting urgent now, Minister,
in view of the fact that firms like, I think they are called genomics
in America are trying to patent the whole of the human genome?
(Mr Meacher) Yes.
171. Whereas the groups in this country and
internationally working together are publishing this on the Internet
as fast as possible to prevent patenting that kind of life process?
(Mr Meacher) Yes. I entirely agree with you. This
has now become an acute and highly controversial issue. I think
there is a widespread view that the human genome or that of other
animals is not a matter for private appropriation, it must be
for the wider public benefit. We must never lose sight of that
even though private interest can help us to gain that knowledge
and benefit. It cannot be appropriated simply for a narrow private
interest.
Joan Walley
172. We have had representations from Earth
Action and they are concerned about the way in which forests are
being logged at huge rates, asking us to raise this in respect
of the WTO round which is about to start in Seattle. Can I just
ask you what you will be doing to look not just at the actual
goods themselves but the process by which goods are produced.
How are you going to safeguard, if you like, production and process
measures within the whole of the round? Do you support this kind
of move towards looking at the whole process, and how?
(Mr Meacher) We do. The WTO does not allow discrimination
at the present time between products based on process and production
methods. Indeed PPMs I think are right at the heart of this whole
process. The problem is although I think our motives are honourable
and correct, they are, as I say, deeply suspected by the developing
countries as yet another Western dominated tariff trade barrier.
That is not our intention and certainly it is our belief that
there is no inherent contradiction. We think the right way to
attempt to address this issue is to try to concentrate on a win/win
situation, of course, for both sides. Clearly in terms of the
environment, not only looking at what gets logged and the processing
by which that happens but also a voluntary eco-labelling system
which promotes market access for environmentally sound products,
often in areas where the developing countries do have a comparative
advantage, that is a deal which it is in their interest to make
but which at the same time protects the environment. Certainly
it does apply particularly to forest products and tropical fruit
as well.
173. If I could move on to core environmental
principles. Do you think the precautionary principle is already
embodied in the WTO disciplines?
(Mr Meacher) It is already incorporated in terms of
food safety. It is incorporated in terms of human, animal and
plant health in the Sanitary and Phytosanitary side agreement
to the WTO. What we want to do is to see if we can find a way
of exploring how a similar approach could be elaborated into a
much wider area. It is a very difficult issue because deciding
in any practical case just how much evidence is sufficient to
take precautionary action when that evidence is not yet absolutely
decisive enough to persuade all sceptics is a matter of very nice
judgment and, of course, it is also quite controversial. I think
it is a very important principle and we would like to extend it
into wider areas.
174. I think it begs the question also of what
the role is for scientific evidence and proof and where the relationship
between scientists and politicians comes into play. Can I just
go back to what you were saying about that because you might say
that the principle is already embodied in it but when Mr Rooker
came to give evidence to our Committee he told us that when it
came to the matter of the GMOs there was not already the scope
to have the moratorium that many people are suggesting there should
be. In other words, it could only be done through voluntary agreements
and then we are back to the developing countries not having the
sophisticated regulation systems to be able to put that in place.
I would suggest to you that although you might like to think it
is embodied in the WTO, it actually is not, a great deal of work
needs to be done on that. Do you agree with that?
(Mr Meacher) I do agree with that. When I said it
is embedded there, I did not mean to give the impression that
it is reflected in all trade areas, I think it is not. It is reflected
in absolutely key ones like health and food safety but it is not
reflected much more widely. GMOs is a very good example, that
is what the Bio-safety Protocol was precisely designed to achieve.
I repeat, it broke down probably more than any other single reason
because of this question of hierarchy between the WTO and MEAs
and we do have to get that right.
175. If it could not apply to GMOs, it cannot
be seen to be there at all. There is not perhaps another issue
that is as important as that one.
(Mr Meacher) I agree with you. I think the precautionary
principle, whilst it is there, is not significantly reflected
in a number of other key and controversial areas, that is absolutely
right. Getting agreement on that is one of our core objectives.
Mr Blizzard
176. Is there a need and is it possible to build
in other fundamental environmental principles such as "the
polluter pays" or "critical ecological limits"?
Can we get that into this?
(Mr Meacher) Clearly we are very keen on the principle
that the polluter should pay. I think that is eminently right.
I think the penalties at the present moment by which the polluter
pays are often inadequate, and I am trying to do something about
that to try to get agreement across the world over that issue,
I would judge at this time is likely to be going too far. It requires
a degree of global governance which I think is beyond where we
now are. Also it would require a detailed protocol as to what
constitutes pollution, what mitigating factors there are, who
would adjudicate about it, what offsetting benefits there might
be. This is a very important area but there is no general protocol
covering this and I do not think that we are going to get it this
time round at all. I have to say it is regrettable.
Chairman
177. Do you think that green protectionism is
a serious issue?
(Mr Meacher) Yes, I do. As I have already said, I
do think that developing countries are deeply suspicious of this
whole process and we have to find a win/win solution which shows
that they get considerable benefit from it as well as trying to
convince them that our motives are not to use environmental considerations
as a trade barrier but are genuinely designed, and necessarily
so, to protect the environment. Clearly their interests centre
on improved market access, the reduction of environmentally harmful
and trade distorting subsidies. There is no doubt that agriculture,
fisheries and textiles are the key ones, and getting rid, as I
have already said more than once, of perverse and excessive subsidies
is certainly something which is in their interest, it damages
environment and it damages trade. To remove it can be beneficial
to the environment and for the trade system.
178. That is not always green protectionism,
is it? I mean very often it is straight protectionism.
(Mr Meacher) That is perfectly true. I think there
are signs, for example, the labour movement in the United States,
which clearly wishes to reduce competition from developing countries
in manners which might threaten their jobs and we are not without
those considerations in Europe. There are some countries on the
Southern rim who are certainly very worried about competition
from developing countries and whose motives are more self-interested
than they care to admit, so I quite agree.
Mrs Brinton
179. I would like to take us back to the WTO.
I think, Minister, as you will agree, it is certainly an organisation
that arouses rather contradictory passions. Would you support
yourself and indeed push for actually a debate on the floor of
the House of Commons before Seattle, after Seattle and certainly
not after the conclusion of negotiations in about three years'
time? I know that we have Ministerial statements and we can ask
questions, I know we have Adjournment Debates, but we would like
a full and proper House of Commons debate in the best traditions
of this House.
(Mr Meacher) My understanding is that there will be
a statement before Seattle and I believe also afterwards, which
will of course give Members—if not the opportunity for full
debate—the opportunity to question the relevant Minister.
I believe that is agreed.
(Mr Bridge) Yes, that is right.
(Mr Meacher) Also the papers that are tabled during
the conference will be submitted for parliamentary scrutiny. Again,
this is I think a lesson that we have learnt compared with the
MAI. It is going to be a much more open, transparent and inclusive
process.
Mrs Brinton: I think we would support that.
Certainly when we were conducting our inquiry into MAI we discovered
very, very different, almost totally contradictory, attitudes
and feelings towards the WTO even as to whether it was suitable
to be the forum for MAI. We had DETR at a different position,
I think it is fair to say, from DTI and the development ministry,
overseas development again totally different from the other ones.
I think we need to debate these issues.
|
