MEMORANDUM SUBMITTED BY FRIENDS OF THE
EARTH
1. INTRODUCTION
AND SUMMARY
1.1 Friends of the Earth welcomes the opportunity
to offer its views to the International Development Select Committee.
Friends of the Earth is one of the UK's leading environmental
public-pressure groups and a member of Friends of the Earth International—the
world's largest environmental network, with almost a million supporters
and member groups in 61 countries. Our views on trade issues reflect
the concerns of our partner groups throughout the network—in
both northern and southern countries—regarding the impact
of a new Round. This evidence was prepared by Ronnie Hall, Duncan
McLaren and Tim Rice of the Sustainable Development Research Unit.
1.2 Trade liberalisation talks collapsed
in Seattle because of worldwide concern that further comprehensive
trade liberalisation would be socially, environmentally and economically
damaging. Northern governments (particularly in Europe and the
United States) were forced to take on board the views of citizens
concerned with issues as diverse as farming, employment and labour
rights, the environment and trade in genetically modified food.
Southern governments found themselves excluded from negotiations
that they fully expected to have a negative impact on their economic
development and registered their objections accordingly, by refusing
to proceed.
1.3 The overall level of opposition to the
proposed Millennium Round of new issues demonstrates the need
for fundamental reform of the international trade system. The
system is inequitable and unsustainable; works to benefit large
transnational corporations through deregulation and increased
market access; overrides other societal concerns, such as health
and environmental protection; and undermines local and regional
trade.
1.4 This is the view of many different people,
in many different circumstances, right across the world. It is
not a view based on lack of understanding of the processes. Rather,
it is a common realisation that this complex and obscure set of
regulations is behind many of the everyday problems that people
experience. Our general experience is that opposition to further
trade liberalisation increases in line with knowledge of
the process.
1.5 The failure of the Seattle talks is
not a disaster, but a positive opportunity for the UK—and
other progressive countries—to carry forward an agenda of
"review, repair and reform" of the trade system and
its rules, with a view to promoting fair and sustainable trade
in the interests of the people of both developing and developed
countries. However, such a review must acknowledge the criticisms
of civil society in both the North and the South and seek to assess
just how and why trade liberalisation as it is currently practised
is failing people and their environment. A review that sidesteps
these concerns by focusing only on the WTO's structures and procedures
is unlikely to do more than provide a temporary "stop-gap"
measure.
1.6 In Friends of the Earth's view, a thorough
and independent review and reform of the trade system should encompass
the following:
— a full, thorough and measured review
of the social and environmental impacts of trade liberalisation;
— a balanced investment agreement under
the auspices of the United Nations, that addresses the legitimate
fears of poorer countries and civil society;
— the removal of agriculture from the
WTO in order to protect and promote the many roles of agriculture;
— unilateral initiatives by the EU
to reduce export subsidies, pay compensation to net-food-importing
developing countries (as promised at the end of the Uruguay Round)
and grant zero-tariffs on all imports from Least Developed Countries;
— reform of the WTO's Trade-Related
aspects of Intellectual Property rights (TRIPs) agreement to remove
the requirement to patent plant varieties and microbiological
processes; and removal of biodiversity from the TRIPs agreement;
— new and substantial commitments to
capacity-building for developing countries;
— a review of the status of the Lome
Convention, currently being reviewed because it conflicts with
WTO rules;
— a moratorium on WTO disputes relating
to environment and development in the WTO and a transfer of such
debates to an alternative, binding international court which does
not prioritise trade over the environment.
1.7 Pending a full and thorough review,
the UK Government and the European Union should also support developing
country requests to extend compliance deadlines for WTO agreements
including TRIPs and Trade-Related Investment Measures (TRIMs).
1.8 Given the serious misgivings that developing
country governments and civil society groups have concerning the
inclusion of new issues in the WTO, no further steps should be
taken to start a new, comprehensive round of liberalisation negotiations.
The UK Government should withdraw its support for any such proposal.
2. INSTITUTIONAL
REFORM AND
CAPACITY BUILDING
2.1 Friends of the Earth supports the concept
of a multilateral rules-based trading system, with equitable participation
by all trading partners and appropriate institutional support,
in order to promote local, national and international trade that
is fair and sustainable. It is clear that current trade structures
and procedures do not meet these criteria. This was particularly
evident during the WTO's Third Ministerial in Seattle.
What happened in Seattle?
2.2 The (largely unmet) concerns of many
developing countries were a key factor in the collapse of the
Ministerial. From the start some developing countries, particularly
in Africa and Asia, were opposed to the inclusion of any new issues
because of (a) lack of capacity; (b) concern that uncontrolled
foreign investment would not benefit them; and (c) the track record
of the WTO, whose previous agreements (on issues such as agriculture
and intellectual property rights) have been biased towards rich
countries and worked against the poorer countries.
2.3 It is also significant that the most
critical developing country complaints about procedures in Seattle
related to the working group dealing with new issues such as competition
and investment (known as the Singapore Issues Working Group).
The Chair of this working group was extremely dismissive of developing
country interventions. Some countries appeared not to know the
Working Group was already meeting and some were refused access
to key "green room" meetings (access to these is restricted
to industrialised nations and carefully selected, larger developing
countries). More generally, the US consistently refused to deal
with the implementation issues that developing countries had prioritised.
2.4 The procedures employed during the meeting
were the final straw for many countries. It was highly inappropriate
that the Chair of the Ministerial was also the main trade negotiator
for the US, Charlene Barshefsky. Ms Barshefsky appeared to be
manipulating the agenda to suit US concerns and at one point refused
to acknowledge that she had even heard of procedural irregularities.
When questioned, Ms Barshefsky responded by threatening to use
even more restrictive procedures if working groups failed to reach
agreement. It seems that African governments also found their
own internal negotiations disrupted by the US, when their interpreter
was forced to leave to assist a highly controversial US-backed
meeting on trade and labour instead.
2.5 Many papers were issued to the press
without identification of authors and without the traditional
square brackets indicating dissent. Thus, for example, a "Ministerial
Declaration" was issued at 05.45 am on Friday, 3 December,
without identification (we can only assume it came from the WTO
Secretariat) and without text being contained in square brackets.
Nevertheless, the EC was later heard to have complained that it
did not agree with this text. Even now the status of this last
draft seems to be uncertain and the subject of much discussion
between governments. Such procedures—later described by
Pascal Lamy, the European Union's Trade Commissioner, as "medieval"—are
particularly difficult for poorly resourced countries to deal
with and are in any case entirely unacceptable in negotiations
of this type.
Civil society and developing country governments
2.6 Civil society groups around the world
and in Seattle sought to demonstrate their support for those developing
country governments who objected to the proposed Millennium Round.
This was important since previous Ministerials have seen weaker
governments forced to concede on issues they were extremely unhappy
about or unable to deal with effectively, because of lack of capacity
(eg investment, intellectual property rights). The same concerns
emerged in Seattle, and much of the final two days was taken up
with civil society groups (such as Third World Network) and unhappy
delegations giving joint press briefings.
2.7 It is therefore misguided to suggest,
as many commentators have, that civil society groups and developing
countries had entirely different agendas. Friends of the Earth,
for example, may criticise the policies of governments in the
North and the South, but we still support the right of all governments
to assess the implications of, negotiate and implement international
agreements. In parallel, Friends of the Earth also supports the
right of civil society to be involved in such decision-making
processes. Since the WTO does not facilitate the equitable participation
of all governments at present there is clearly common ground.
2.8 In this context, the UK's current commitments
to capacity-building for developing countries, whilst welcome,
are limited. The Environmental Audit Committee propounded a similar
view in its November 1999 report on the Millennium Round proposal.
Capacity-building is a task likely to take many years. It is not
appropriate to bring yet more issues—particularly those
likely to have a significant impact on the economies of poorer
countries—into the WTO under these circumstances.
3. IMPLEMENTATION
OF URUGUAY
ROUND MEASURES
3.1 The Uruguay Round is not yet complete.
Some developing countries have yet to fully implement their commitments—whether
due to lack of technical and economic capacity, or a lack of political
will following the realisation that to meet all requirements of
the World Trade Agreement would not be in their interests (see
also 4.3 and 4.11).
3.2 Moreover, industrialised countries have
not yet met their commitments to helping developing countries
(for example, compensation to net-food-importing developing countries)
or opening their own borders with respect to agricultural commodities
and textiles, in particular.
3.3 Friends of the Earth does not advocate
an uncritical approach to liberalisation in these areas, but recognises
that building trust between Northern and Southern countries will
require resolution of these and other outstanding issues relating
to existing agreements.
4. TRIMS AND
TRIPS
Investment
4.1 Developing country concern about the
inclusion of investment as a new issue was one of the factors
that brought the Seattle negotiations to a standstill. However,
efforts to include investment in the WTO began even before the
WTO was established. During the Uruguay Round negotiations some
countries advocated expanding the traditional GATT focus on trade
in goods to cover investment. This was done in a small way in
the Agreement on Trade-Related Investment Measures (TRIMs). The
TRIMs agreement is a WTO agreement that bars countries from imposing
several kinds of performance requirements (conditions) on foreign
investors. Under TRIMs, governments cannot require corporations
to export a minimum percentage of finished products, or to use
a minimum percentage of domestically-produced components.
4.2 TRIMs obligations start applying to
developing countries in 1999-2000. Some countries, such as India
and the Philippines, have sought additional waivers, arguing that
domestic content requirements are important development tools.
4.3 Following the collapse of the Seattle
Ministerial, at which governments had expected to resolve these
issues, there is a great deal of uncertainty concerning the status
of these deadlines. North-South tensions continue to manifest
themselves in the WTO as the debate turns to whether developing
countries should now start implementing Uruguay Round commitments
under agreements such as TRIPs and TRIMs (these are currently
referred to as "deadline issues"). So far, there has
been no formal extension for developing countries and debate continues
on the basis that the Chair of the General Council expects Members
States to exercise "restraint". This does raise the
spectre of challenges concerning those countries not implementing
their TRIMs and TRIPs obligations immediately.
4.4 Friends of the Earth believes that it
is inappropriate to expect developing countries to implement obligations
under agreements signed at the end of the Uruguay Round, given
the unacceptable pressure exerted on developing country members
during that Round (which employed procedures similar to those
used in Seattle); their lack of capacity to deal with the wide
range of issues on the table during the Uruguay Round; and their
current concerns regarding these agreements. The UK Government
should move to extend these exemptions pending a full review of
the current trade system, which should include consideration of
the social and environmental impacts of TRIMs and TRIPs in developing
countries.
4.5 The TRIMs agreement is also due for
review as part of the built-in agenda. Friends of the Earth is
particularly concerned that this review should not be used to
introduce an agreement similar to the Multilateral Agreement on
Investment (MAI) into the WTO.
Intellectual Property
4.6 Traditionally, trade liberalisation
has been associated with deregulation. However, the opposite is
the case with intellectual property rights (IPRs) protection.
The TRIPs Agreement lays down a set of rules stipulating how governments
must regulate to protect various aspects of intellectual property
including patents, copyrights, designs and trade marks and affects
a diverse array of sectors including pharmaceuticals, computer
programming and transgenic crops.
4.7 Few would argue that some form of regulation
is needed to facilitate fair trade, to—for example—allow
inventors to benefit from their inventions, clamp down on counterfeit
goods and permit musicians to benefit from their compositions.
However, the TRIPs Agreement is based on industrialised countries'
legislation and is not suited to the rather different needs of
developing countries. In fact the conflict is such that the TRIPs
Agreement is, along with agriculture, the major cause for concern
in developing country members at the moment.
4.8 The TRIPs Agreement impacts on peoples'
ownership of and access to food and seeds and has the potential
to significantly reduce genetic diversity. It permits northern
TNCs to claim traditional plant varieties or plant uses as "inventions"
that must be respected the world over. TRIPs and the use of patents
expropriates knowledge from farmers and indigenous peoples in
developing countries who, in many cases, have been cultivators,
researchers and protectors of plants for thousands of years, commonly
referred to as "biopiracy". Biopiracy is not the result
of the absence of IPR systems in the developing world but a direct
consequence of the imposition of western style IPR systems (based
on the US patent regime) through the TRIPs Agreement.
4.9 Under WTO enforced patent law, Monsanto
has the right to take farmers to court if they collect and use
seeds from its patented plant varieties. In the USA, Monsanto
has opened more than 475 such "seed piracy" cases nation
wide. Monsanto's "terminator gene" technology that makes
plants sterile would have helped the company to enforce its patent
rights. However, even if Monsanto keeps its voluntary pledge not
to commercialise this technology, the promotion of patented varieties,
backed by legal action, could pose a significant threat to food
security in the developing world. Approximately 1.4 billion people
around the world depend on farm-saved seed for their food security.
4.10 Proponents of the TRIPs Agreement claim
that it will promote technology transfer as knowledge-based companies
invest in developing world resources. This is not being borne
out in reality. Instead of promoting a freer flow of ideas and
technology, strong IPR laws allow companies to have greater control
and maintain a tighter grip over knowledge. As Third World Network
concludes: "TRIPs is . . . not a step towards `free trade'.
It is the reverse: it restricts rather than promotes technology
flow, giving a boost to monopoly practices instead of curbing
them."1
4.11 As with TRIMs, governments are currently
arguing over "deadline issues"—whether developing
country exemptions should be extended past the end of 1999, allowing
them to delay implementation of their obligations under the TRIPs
Agreement. As with TRIMs, Friends of the Earth believes that it
is not appropriate to hold developing country governments to these
deadlines, given their lack of capacity at the time of signing,
pressure exerted on them during the Uruguay Round and their current
concerns. The UK Government should move to extend TRIPs exemptions
pending a full review of the current trade system, which should
include consideration of the social and environmental impacts
of both TRIMs and TRIPs in developing countries.
4.12 The TRIPs Agreement is being reviewed,
although it is not clear if there is yet agreement between governments
concerning the scope of the review. It is known that the US wants
to extend the TRIPs Agreement to include a full life-form patenting,
but that it is also concerned that an extensive review might also
lead to a backsliding of current commitments and an extension
of the phase-in period for developing countries.2
4.13 Several developing countries are also
now suggesting that TRIPS take into account the effect of other
international treaties—such as the Convention on Biological
Diversity—and that IPR disciplines cover "indigenous
knowledge". Other developing countries also want to consider
an expansion of "geographical indications"—normally
applied to wine and distilled spirits—to cover such items
as handicrafts and textile designs.
4.14 Friends of the Earth believes that
the negative impact of the TRIPs Agreement on developing countries
could be substantially reduced. The UK Government should use the
ongoing TRIPs review to put a stop to the TRIPs requirement to
patent plant varieties and microbiological processes, and to ensure
that the TRIPs Agreement does not cover biodiversity. Instead,
biodiversity should be dealt with under the Convention on Biological
Diversity (patents) and the associated Biosafety Protocol (trade
restrictions). Furthermore, the EU and developing countries must
stand firm in their support for restrictions on GM trade, in the
face of continuing pressure from the Miami group of GM-food exporting
nations during Biosafety Protocol negotiations. (The defeat of
the biotechnology working group proposal in the WTO means that
the Biosafety Protocol negotiation now has a better chance of
success).
5. THE BUILT-IN
AGENDA
5.1 Despite the failure of the Seattle Ministerial,
there are a number of WTO reviews and negotiations due. Governments
signed up to these commitments as part of the last Uruguay Round
of trade negotiations and intend to continue as agreed then.
5.2 This "built-in" agenda includes
TRIMs and TRIPs (see (4) above). It also includes further trade
liberalisation negotiations in agriculture and services and reviews
of other agreements such as the Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT)
Agreement.
Agriculture
5.3 Agriculture is a key issue for people
in both the North and the South and the most significant of the
built-in agenda issues. The current Agreement on Agriculture is
highly inappropriate since it focuses on trade, at the expense
of other aspects of agriculture, and benefits transnationals at
the expense of small farms the world over.
5.4 People in the "South" are
losing their access to land, fisheries and other natural and genetic
resources, primarily as a result of the WTO's Agreements on Agriculture
and Trade-Related aspects of Intellectual Property rights (see
TRIPs above). People in the "North" are also deeply
concerned about the quality of food produced and traded by agribusiness
(affected by the workings of the Sanitary and Phytosanitary (SPS)
Agreement); and about the health of their own rural communities
(also affected by the AoA).
5.5 Whilst reduction of tariff barriers
and export subsidies which disadvantage developing country agricultural
producers is important, it has become clear to us that—due
to the multi-functional nature of agriculture—the WTO is
not an appropriate forum for such negotiations. Friends of the
Earth believes that agriculture should be taken out of the WTO
and negotiated in an alternative forum in which trade is considered,
but as a factor which cannot over-ride issues such as food security
and safety, rural employment and ecological impacts.
5.6 Moreover, internal pressures in the
EU, resulting from expansion, offer an opportunity to reform the
Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) in ways that could benefit developing
countries as well as promoting sustainable agriculture within
the EU. The EU should make unilateral efforts to reduce export
subsidies and pay compensation to net-food-importing developing
countries (as promised at the end of the Uruguay Round) as part
of measures to signal its genuine intentions towards the developing
world.
5.7 The UK Government clearly supports "further
fundamental reform of the EU's Common Agricultural Policy (CAP)"
3. From FOE's perspective, the question is not whether,
but how production subsidies should be reduced. In our view an
orderly transition to sustainable agriculture systems would involve
lower production subsidies but would also require targeted support
for rural communities and sustainable agricultural practices,
which would not necessarily survive a WTO challenge under the
AoA.
The Agreement on Agriculture (AoA)
5.8 The aim of the Agreement on Agriculture
(AoA), first negotiated during the Uruguay Round, is to reduce
agricultural support and protection to correct and prevent distortions
in world agricultural markets. It is a very complex agreement,
but covers three main areas: market access, domestic production
subsidies and subsidised exports.
5.9 From the beginning the AoA was slanted
in favour of the large farms and developed countries. The "reference
years" chosen for the calculation of cuts in domestic production
and export subsidies were such that the EU and the USA were not
required to make significant changes to their existing regimes.
However, developing countries with little or no existing subsidies
were prohibited from providing new subsidies above a maximum level.
Overall, this allowed the industrialised world to maintain high
export/production subsidies while preventing the developing world
from implementing their own.
5.10 The AoA also requires WTO members to
convert all non-traffic barriers to imports into "equivalent"
tariffs (commonly known as "tariffication") and then
to reduce these tariffs. Since the industrialised countries had
much greater non-tariff barriers and were able to convert these
into prohibitively high tariffs, they act as a highly effective
barrier to many imports from developing countries. The developing
world, on the other hand, had fewer non-tariff barriers and thus
implemented fewer tariffs.
5.11 Dumping is "accepted" as
part of the rules in the AoA (dumping is usually defined as sale
at less than the domestic price). The commitment to reduce the
volume of export subsidies was set at just 21 per cent for developed
countries by the year 2000; that effectively means that 79 per
cent of export subsidies are still "allowed". Countries
in which products have been dumped may be able to take counter
actions through the WTO; but, in practice, such action is very
complex (ie, they have to prove injury to a domestic industry),
costly and beyond the scope of most developing nations.
5.12 Developing countries have "special
and differential treatment" whereby they can provide various
subsidies to farmers—such as for investment or to low-income
producers—if they can afford to, but such subsidies may
not exceed 1992 levels. Such subsidies are never likely to reach
the $19,000 per annum that the EU and US still pay each of their
farmers (on average). 4
5.13 Furthermore, trade liberalisation under
the AoA does very little to encourage food production in developing
countries for their own domestic consumption. Indeed, the disciplines
on import controls and domestic support hamper any moves in this
direction.
5.14 The AoA currently allows certain forms
of direct payment subsidies, provided they are not linked to production
or prices (commonly known as the Green Box) or are applied so
as to limit production (commonly known as the Blue Box). The Green
Box includes measures such as environmental payments, support
for rural infrastructure and insurance schemes; and the Blue Box
includes payments based on unit size of farm and numbers of animals.
However, production has remained high—particularly in the
EU—as the support system, on balance, continues to favour
large farms at the expense of the small ones via the Blue Box.
Large farms tend to be more intensive and highly mechanised. They
benefit from new and more powerful agro-chemicals, further damaging
the environment.
5.15 Under the CAP, the EU has one of the
most heavily protected markets and subsidised production systems
in the world. Recent, very limited reforms to the CAP means that
the EU went to Seattle seeking to maintain a number of key provisions
in the AoA, particularly a "successful defence of the `blue
box'".5 Not surprisingly, the EU also wished to
negotiate a renewal after 2003 of the peace clause (which calls
upon WTO members to exercise due restraint and not to challenge
support measures of others if they are kept below 1992 levels)
and the special safeguard provisions (which allows domestic markets
to be protected against large rises in import volumes or a sharp
fall in world prices although the provisions can only be applied
to products that have been subject to tariffication). We can anticipate
the EU taking similar positions in negotiations as part of the
built-in agenda.
5.16 Following the collapse of the Seattle
Ministerial there seems to be a significant rift between the European
Union and the United States over agriculture. The US wants to
develop negotiations on the basis of provisional agreements made
in Seattle. The EU refuses to do this, arguing that it made commitments
on agriculture in the expectation that it would gain concessions
in other sectors. This did not happen. At the very least, this
can be expected to delay further negotiations to liberalise agriculture.
Services
5.17 The General Agreement on Trade in Services
(GATS) is intended to secure the progressive removal of measures
which discriminate against foreign service suppliers through rounds
of negotiations.
5.18 As far as the next round of services
negotiations (known as GATS 2000) is concerned, it is not yet
clear which industrial sectors governments will decide to include.
However, there has been a suggestion from the United States that
all service sectors should be considered.6 This is
also the thrust of the Services Article in the last draft declaration
circulated in Seattle. If such a broad approach were to be adopted
it could have extensive (although so far unknown) environmental
and developmental implications, with areas such as public health,
education, the film industry, broadcasting, tourism and energy
and water services up for liberalisation.
5.19 Although the details of proposed services
negotiations are still unknown, this is an area of great concern
for civil society in both the North and the South. In particular,
across-the-board services liberalisation could reduce or eliminate
democratic control over important public service sectors; and
further hinder the development of infant industries in developing
economies.
Technical Barriers to Trade Agreement (TBT)
5.20 The Technical Barriers to Trade or
TBT agreement covers any procedures or standards that might be
deemed to interfere with international trade. This includes packaging,
marking and labelling standards, and thus eco-labels and potentially
fair-trade marks. This agreement is also up for review this year.
The outcome of such a review is difficult to predict, as are the
consequences for developing country exporters.
6. ISSUES OF
PARTICULAR IMPORTANCE
TO DEVELOPING
COUNTRIES
6.1 Agriculture and TRIPs are perhaps the
most important issues of particular significance for developing
countries. We have outlined our views and concerns regarding these
issues already. Here we would like to note that Friends of the
Earth, despite its broad reservations about the ill-considered
pursuit of trade liberalisation, does support the proposal for
tariff—and quota-free access for the least developed countries.
We believe that the EU should implement this proposal unilaterally
as soon as possible.
7. CONCLUSIONS
7.1 The UK Government has several avenues
open to help developing countries maximise the benefits of participating
in trade, and in the WTO.
No new Round
7.2 Withdraw support for a new Round. The
European Union is still pushing for a new, comprehensive round
of trade liberalisation negotiations. Given the serious misgivings
that developing country governments and civil society groups have
concerning the inclusion of new issues in the WTO—and in
order to be seen to be taking the concerns of developing countries
on board—the UK Government should withdraw its support for
the current EU position.
A full review
7.3 Support a full, thorough and measured
review of the impacts of trade liberalisation on people and their
environment, with input from civil society (through a number of
different institutions perhaps, including the United Nations Commission
on Sustainable Development and the UN Conference on Trade and
Development). This review needs to include an assessment of the
impacts of export-led development in general, and the impact of
international debt obligations on trade policy in developing countries.
Extend TRIMs and TRIPs deadlines for developing
countries
7.4 Pending a full and thorough review,
and given the treatment and misgivings of developing countries
during the Uruguay Round of negotiations, the UK Government and
the European Union should support developing country requests
for extending compliance dealines for WTO agreements including
TRIPs and TRIMs.
Keep investment out of the WTO
7.5 Seek a balanced investment agreement
under the auspices of the UN. Investment rules are needed—but
investment liberalisation has become something of an albatross—sinking
any international process it is attached to, because of the legitimate
fears of poorer countries and civil society.
Reform agriculture rules and subsidies
7.6 Promote the removal of agriculture from
the WTO, since agriculture is too important in terms of multi-functionality
to give trade issues top consideration. The current Agreement
on Agriculture is highly inappropriate since it benefits transnationals
at the expense of small farms the world over. The EU should, at
the same time, make unilateral efforts to reduce export subsidies;
pay compensation to net-food-importing developing countries (as
promised at the end of the Uruguay Round); and grant zero-tariffs
on all Least Developed Country imports, to signal its genuine
intentions towards the developing world.
Intellectual property rights and biotechnology
7.7 Work within the ongoing review of the
Trade-Related aspects of Intellectual Property rights (TRIPs)
Agreement to put a stop to the TRIPs requirement to patent plant
varieties and microbiological processes, and to ensure that the
TRIPs agreement does not cover biodiversity. Instead, biodiversity
should be dealt with in the Convention on Biological Diveresity
(patents) and the associated Biosafety Protocol (trade restrictions).
The EU and developing countries must stand firm in supporting
restrictions on trade in genetically modified food, in the face
of ongoing pressure from the Miami group of GM food exporting
nations during Biosafety Protocol negotiations. The defeat of
the biotechnology working group proposal in the WTO means that
this negotiation now has a better chance of success.
Capacity-building
7.8 Make new and substantial commitments
to capacity-building for developing countries, with a view to
allowing them to participate meaningfully and on their own terms
in international negotiations. In this context, within the EU,
the review of the Lome Agreement should be reconsidered, since
this long-standing arrangement with African, Pacific and Caribbean
countries is only being dismantled because it conflicts with WTO
rules. FOE welcomes the support of Stephen Byers for an increase
in WTO budgets for developing countries, but notes that attendance
and participation at the WTO is only one of the needs of such
countries.
Moratorium on WTO disputes
7.9 Promote a moratorium on disputes relating
to environment and development in the WTO. To enable developing
countries in particular to still bring cases against legislation
they deem to be unfair or not genuine, cases should be referred
to an alternative, binding international court which does not
prioritise trade over the environment.
Note: Further information about international
trade and its social and environmental impacts is available at:
http://www.foe.co.uk/camps/wto-briefings/wtoindex.htm
Friends of the Earth
January 2000
REFERENCES
1. Khor, M, 1996. Free Trade—For Whom?
Orbit Magazine, No 60. See Voluntary Service Overseas.
2. Washington Trade Daily, 1999.
US wants TRIPS off Seattle Agenda. 5 August 1999.
3. DTI, 1999a. The UK and the World Trade
Organisation; an Introduction to the Next Round. Department
of Trade and Industry, May 1999, page 14.
4. Agra Europe, 1999. EU counters
US CAP support criticism. 25 June 1999.
5. European Commission, 1999. The EU
Approach to the Millennium Round. Communication from the Commission
to the Council and to the European Parliament. July, European
Commission, Brussels.
6. Inside US Trade, 1999. Barshefsky reveals
US push to broaden WTO Services Talks, Inside US Trade, 4
June 1999.
| 
