Examination of witnesses (Questions (140
- 155)
TUESDAY 7 MARCH 2000
MR MIKE
MOORE and MR
PATRICK LOW
140. My next question also relates to agriculture.
You might think it is quite parochial but it is quite big politics
in Britain and that is the whole question of animal welfare standards.
I wonder if you might like to comment on how one addresses animal
welfare standards when they vary around the world? In this country,
we are particularly keen not to have animal products imported
that have been raised to much lower welfare standards than we
implement in this country.
(Mr Moore) In Seattle, this went back and forth. Many
developing countries saw this as a protectionist measure; that
this was really a way for some Europeans to stop their products
coming in.
141. You should tell my pig farmers that.
(Mr Moore) I do not believe it, knowing the English
as well as I do on animal rights issues. This is a deeply held
view of many people in Britain, is it not?
Chairman
142. They say we look after our animals better
than we look after our children.
(Mr Moore) When Yuri Gagarin was here, there were
thousands of Londoners out celebrating the first man in space.
Apparently, Macmillan said that there would have been a bigger
crowd if they had sent the dog. I do not know if I can give an
answer. I am sure that Europeans and NGOs are going to force and
pressure this. In negotiations, I think we are going to have to
face animal rights issues, although it will be extremely uncomfortable.
Somehow, we will have to get some formula up that is transparent,
that is not protectionist and does not impose unfair costs on
developing countries.
Mr Rowe
143. One of the other things that I must say
shook me when we went on our expedition to southern Africa was
that the Department for International Development had a scheme
called "starter packs" where they were providing something
like a quarter of a hectare's worth of seeds and fertilizer to
virtually every farmer around. Of course, there were leakages
from the programme and people were anxious but I understand that
the principal assault on the concept came from EU partners who
said you could not do that because, after all, it was an element
of subsidy. Is there within the World Trade Organisation a distinction
made between what may be desirable in global principle and what
actually affects people who otherwise will die of lack of food?
It does seem to me that sometimes the WTO and organisations like
it cling to these rather arcane principles which do not seem quite
as important to somebody with a large, disposable income but are
deeply damaging to people who really do not know where tomorrow's
food is coming from.
(Mr Moore) That has not been the subject of a dispute
or brought to my attention in any way. I would be surprised if
a measure introduced by South Africa to assist farmers at that
level would ever be the subject of dispute or arrive at our table.
Ann Clwyd
144. The other criticism frequently made of
the WTO is that the free trade policies have a negative impact
on the environment. For example, I understand that you intend
lifting the tariffs on wood products. I would have thought that
was bad news for the world's already depleted forests and indeed
might have some impact on environmental degradation, on flooding
and the problems that various parts of the world is now experiencing.
How much of that comes into your calculations when you wish to
pursue a particular policy?
(Mr Moore) Many countries think it is a fine thing
to lift tariffs on forestry. Timber producing countries —
for example, New Zealand or others — have in the last 50
years increased the amount of forestry. In moderate climates,
I was reading, the amount of afforestation has gone up, not down.
Our problem is in the hard wood area. The question of trading
environment — we have done quite a good report and I will
get it to you[2]
— is a matter of some controversy inside the WTO. There
are many ambassadors who believe we are an organisation that assists
negotiations and settles disputes. If you want that sort of report
done, go to UNCTAD, go to OECD. The prime and fundamental question
about trade and the environment is this: first, of course trade
affects the environment. For many years we said it did not. All
human activity impacts upon the environment. Let us stop playing
games. Of course it does. The important question is does trade
between countries cause more havoc and degrade the environment
more than trade within a country. That is not proven. The evidence
we have is it is not so. I will get you that report if you would
like to have a look at it. It is a pretty important work from
our point of view. On the issue of tariffs, the negotiations did
not start but there are a lot of countries pushing for a reduction
in tariffs on forestry.
(Mr Low) The relationship is quite complex. For the
most part, optimal environmental policy is going to do a lot more
for the environment than trying to introduce trade restrictions.
Can I just give an example of what could happen if you put trade
restrictions on wood? For a country that is exporting wood and
faces trade barriers in the importing country, the consequence
of those import barriers will be to lower the price of the wood.
If that goes too far, the land on which the wood is produced will
become more valuable in other uses. It is a complex relationship
and we have to be very careful about making over-simple deductions
about what the relationship between, say, trade policy and environmental
policy is. It is difficult. It is not an excuse for not worrying
about where trade does have an impact. This example of forgetting
about what is happening on the supply side is a good illustration
of why we have to be careful.
Mr Khabra
145. You have told us a lot about how you would
like to develop the WTO to make it more effective and influential.
The IDS believes that the widening mandate that you have will
have implications for relations with other international bodies.
As you know, this concern is particularly acute in the field of
Multilateral Environmental Agreements. There are currently about
200 international agreements in force which deal with environmental
issues, of which about 20 include trade related provisions. My
question is: what attempts are made to ensure that WTO agreements
are compatible with other treaties and conventions such as the
Montreal Protocol? What happens when the two conflict?
(Mr Moore) We are supposed to be complementary. This
is the problem again of not having Seattle. Inside those negotiations,
we wanted to do some more work to work out how you reconcile when
there is conflict. I am obliged under our rules to let our legal
processes go. There could well be conflict and it is a matter
of enormous anxiety to us.
(Mr Low) So far, we have not had a dispute where a
provision under a Multilateral Environmental Agreement, or the
application of such a provision, has been challenged in the WTO.
If we did, I have a suspicion that at the end of the day the WTO
would probably yield, but it is not clear. We do need to do more
work and one thing that I think is very clear from the WTO perspective
is that we cannot adjudicate what is in a Multilateral Environmental
Agreement. That is about the environment. Governments need to
agree about those things and make sure they do not sign different
agreements that are going to meet each other and clash.
146. What mechanism have you already in place
to resolve these conflicts?
(Mr Low) We do not have any, but there is a discussion
going on within the trade and environmental framework. Some governments
are looking for an explicit recognition that trade provisions
in other multilateral agreements will not be subject to challenge
within the WTO. That is relatively straightforward if countries
could agree, but it gets a little more difficult if the membership
of the WTO does not coincide with the membership of the Multilateral
Environmental Agreement. That would be the kind of situation where
we would have difficulty. It is not a resolved issue.
Chairman
147. Do you think that the recently negotiated
Fiji agreement between the European Union and the ACP —
they are going to apply to you to get that agreed under the waiver
Article 34. Do you think that is likely in the WTO?
(Mr Moore) It would be inappropriate for me to comment
on what will happen. This will be a matter of some controversy
and negotiation. There are those who feel they will win out of
this; there are those who feel they will lose. I cannot prejudge
something before it goes through our legal process. In the past,
these things have worked themselves through. We copped a lot of
blame from African, Caribbean and Pacific countries over this
as though, if there had been no WTO, there would not have been
a revisiting of the Lome Convention. I think the Lome Convention
would have been revisited without the WTO. We have a package coming
from Brussels. It arrived on Friday. It now has to go through
our legal processes and it would be improper of me to prejudge
any of that.
148. Can I ask you about the banana situation?
Do you think it is possible to make an agreement on bananas that
is agreeable to the WTO, that does not require a WTO waiver, unless
it is a tariff only solution?
(Mr Moore) That is going to be very difficult. I have
to pass on some of these things.
149. If we got an agreement between the United
States of America, central America, the Caribbean and Europe but
it was not strictly in accordance with WTO rules and there was
an agreement between the parties, do you think such an agreement
would be likely to get a waiver, shall we say, for ten years?
(Mr Moore) It is quite possible, yes.
Chairman: That looks like the way forward,
does it not?
Mr Jones
150. You mentioned in your introduction that
we are going to have two billion more people on the planet in
the next 30 years and I think you said we need to double food
production. I wonder if the WTO has a position on genetic modification
because the benefits of GM are supposed to be that you get higher
yields and disease resistant crops. Can GM feed the world?
(Mr Moore) The WTO has no position on these sorts
of issues. They may be sent to us to adjudicate at some stage,
which is a pretty chilling thought. I threw that in because I
think this is something all societies and parliaments will have
to think through. I remember reading recently about a new rice
that can save two million children from blindness a year because
of the vitamin A in the husk. I guess the primary issues are safety
and health. We are not champions or opponents; we are simply there
to help countries negotiate rules and make sure the rules they
negotiate they abide by. When they do not abide by them, then
we have certain remedies at our disposal.
Chairman: I bet you would not get Japan
to import it.
Mr Grant
151. You said in answer to the Chairman's question
about renegotiating LOME, where it was compatible with WTO rules,
that this would have to be negotiated. Who would you be negotiating
with? Would it be the European Union? Would it be the ACP countries
or both?
(Mr Moore) The European Union brings to the WTO a
proposition to handle Lome. That then goes into our system. If
it requests a waiver, that is possible. Again, I am in a difficult
situation. I ought not to discuss a case that will be a matter
of legal implications, but every time this has happened before
people have tried to work it through and a waiver has been reached.
152. If an agreement has been reached between
the European Union and the ACP countries, surely we should be
negotiating with both parties as opposed to the European Union
alone?
(Mr Moore) There have been lots of negotiations going
on, as you know. There have been Ministerials in Brussels and
thousands of hours spent. I understand a package that ACP countries
and Europe can agree with has now been finalised. The question
that comes to us is: is it compatible? Is there a need for a waiver?
What do third parties think about this? Not all poor countries
are ACP members and there are competitors out there. I have to
again dodge the question and say it goes into our system and let
us see what comes out at the other end. It looks like some very
solid, sensible, constructive and useful work has been done in
Brussels with the ACP but that is about as far as I can go.
(Mr Low) The reason for the focus on the European
Union is because it is they who need to have the waiver from their
obligations not to discriminate among members of the WTO. They
want to discriminate in favour of the Lome countries with the
preferences and it is they who must be given the exemption. That
explains really why the focus is on them. They asked for it.
Mr Rowe
153. Seattle threw into very sharp focus the
accountability of NGOs and I just wondered whether you, in your
position, have any views on that growing question which you would
like to share with us.
(Mr Moore) I was a minister in the eighties. The greatest
change I have seen from the eighties through to now has been the
explosion and globalisation of NGOs. This is an enormous change
to politics. We now have NGOs that have enormous resources. The
World Wildlife Fund, which does some superb work, has three times
my budget. It is an interesting change in political influence
and power. I have some very strong views that I would like to
one day put into a book. As Director-General, I can only report
to you on behalf of our members. There is a large number of members
who do not believe and keep saying, "This is a government
to government organisation; we do not want NGOs involved."
I think they are right. It is a government to government organisation.
NGOs will not sit at the negotiating table any more than they
will sit inside your Cabinet or on the Security Council, but I
do think we ought to forge fresh and new kinds of relationships
at government level and at the international level, because this
is a new expression and we ought not to feel threatened by it.
154. There is a very serious issue here. Three
strongly motivated people with a good grasp of publicity can create
an impression of an organisation in depth to whose voice we should
all listen. The disparity between the quality and the involvement
and the base of different NGOs is surely becoming a matter of
serious concern?
(Mr Moore) NGOs vary between ones that, for example,
believe in the WTO as they believe in governments and simply want
the WTO or your Government to implement things they deeply believe
in. There are others of course who do not believe governments
have legitimacy, that the World Trade Organisation has no legitimacy,
that they are the spokespeople for the people. I felt quite offended
at Seattle where the objective of some — only some —
was on behalf of democracy and the grass roots to stop ministers
negotiating. I think that is neo-Fascist. The objective is to
block parliament. Sure, change it; sure, influence it; sure, throw
the rascals in or out but to not allow them to do their job I
think was a very dangerous tendency of only a few NGOs. This is
a problem. It is far too sweeping but it is fascinating. In my
generation, you joined a political party. Inside that party, you
made trade-offs on issues left and right, up and down, centre
or whatever. A lot of very highly motivated people joined political
parties and picked which issue they wanted to be in through an
NGO. I would suspect Greenpeace in New Zealand would probably
have more members than all the political parties put together.
This is a phenomenon and it is not an unwelcome one. These are
good people, without being condescending. It is the people who
do not march that you have to worry about frequently in life,
and who are obliged to march occasionally.
Barbara Follett
155. What do you think would be the most useful
thing that could happen now to help the WTO get to another Round?
(Mr Moore) I think continued support for this package
and these confidence building steps we are taking, to thank your
ministers and your Government for being generous in regard to
technical assistance and budgets. I think this is just gently,
gently, and it is up to us to prove there has to be something
in this for everyone. I believe there is. I believe there can
be, but if we do enough work on implementation and on capacity
building we will make the case more real. In conclusion —
this gets me into trouble with some NGOs — it is not a matter
of small moment that Europe and north America are successful economies.
People say it is all for the rich. I do not believe that, but
it is very important to the nations of the south that the European
economy and the US economy continue to pump forward. Occasionally,
someone ought to say thank you. I am from the Pacific. We went
through a crisis in Asia. Had the markets of the north closed
down, Lord knows what could have happened. It could have been
very lethal. It was not and that is a credit to the leadership
in our region and the leadership in north America and Europe.
There was a surge of exports. People did march and say, "What
is happening here?" but the region where I come from is now
building back. I think to assert the values of a multilateral
system, to build confidence in it and also to say it is an important
thing that there be a prosperous and successful Europe and north
America is the best thing we can do for the countries of the south
as long as we are not exploiting them as we do it. Thank you for
the opportunity.
Chairman: Mike Moore and Patrick Low,
thank you very much indeed for coming to see us this morning all
the way from Geneva and the world. We have learned a great deal
this morning.
2 The World Trade Organisation (1999), Special Studies
4: Trade and Environment. Back
|
