Conclusions and recommendations
1. The
Millennium Ecosystem Assessment shows that extensive environmental
degradation has taken place which will have devastating impacts
on the poor and vulnerable in developing countries. The Assessment
is clear; concerted effort is required to address the root causes
of such damage including tackling market failures, weak regulation
and a lack of coordination between international organisations.
The Department for Trade and Industry (DTI), Department for Environment,
Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) and DfID all have a clear responsibility
to ensure that messages from the Assessment are heeded and incorporated
across all policies. (Paragraph 13)
2. It is clear that
the relationship between trade liberalisation and the environment
is an uneasy one. It appears that the main international focus
has been on the liberalisation of trade, with the benefits that
this may bring, while failing to recognise the full environmental
or social impacts that this liberalisation may have. It is paramount
that, where liberalisation is pursued, effective accompanying
measures are adopted to prevent or limit the environmental and
social impacts. Without such measures, international trade liberalisation
is only likely to add to environmental degradation. (Paragraph
23)
GOVERNMENT POLICY ON TRADE AND THE ENVIRONMENT
3. Although
research commissioned by the Government highlighted the importance
of flanking measures, the fact that the 2004 DTI White Paper neglects
to consider explicitly the role that these may play suggests that
the DTI has failed to get to grips with sustainability issues
in trade. (Paragraph 29)
4. We commend the
Government's support for international environmental organisations.
We are nevertheless concerned that there is a clear lack of consideration
as to how trade and environmental policies can be made mutually
supportive. This must include specific commitments in UK policy
that the impact of trade on the environment will be fully considered,
and effective flanking measures to offset the negative impacts
of trade introduced. this issue is too important for it not to
be expressed specifically as Government policy; the Government
must set out how it will seek to address the environmental impacts
of trade. (Paragraph 30)
5. We look forward
to the Government's formal response to the Sustainable Procurement
Task Force National Action Plan. We trust that the Government
will take a positive stance on the document. We hope that sustainability
will be the driving force of procurement policy and adequately
take account of climate change and other global environmental
threats. (Paragraph 34)
THE WORLD TRADE ORGANISATION
6. It
is paramount that the CTE fulfils its mandate in scrutinising
the interface between the environment and trade. it is essential,
not only for the environment, but also for development objectives,
the CTE is not sidelined in addressing a wide range of environment-trade
issues. We are concerned that the Government seems to believe
that the CTE is fulfilling its role when we have seen evidence
to the contrary. If the Government is truly committed to a sustainable
international trade system it must, with the EU, be a strong advocate
for a serious and urgent debate on these issues in the CTE.
(Paragraph 46)
7. It is essential
that MEAs are more extensively involved not only in the CTE but
also in other WTO bodies, especially in light of potential conflicts
which may arise if trade rules and MEA rules are contradictory.
An agreement between relevant MEAs and the WTO which establishes
a mutually supportive relationship with information exchange is
essential for sustainability to be better incorporated into WTO
negotiations. It is also important that MEAs are able to have
substantial impact on negotiations. We agree with the Government
that observer status and information exchange should be a priority,
and we advocate the Government and EC taking a strong line to
ensure that this will be included as part of a completed Round.
(Paragraph 55)
8. The concerns that
developing countries have with regards to environmental measures,
either that they will be used for protectionist purposes or that
they could hinder development objectives, must be addressed if
we are to move forward on these issues in a truly sustainable
manner. (Paragraph 60)
9. We are concerned
that the CTE is now hindering a more holistic approach to the
consideration of these issues. Lack of joined-up thinking will
result in missed opportunities to make trade, environment and
development policies mutually supportive and risks environmental
and developmental objectives being undermined by trade agreements.
(Paragraph 61)
10. The UK Government
and the EC must urgently act to reinvigorate the consideration
of environmental issues in the CTE, by insisting that environmental
consequences associated with wider negotiations also be considered.
It is imperative that the UK and the EU works with developing
country members to ensure that they are aware that poverty eradication
is heavily dependent upon a functioning environment, and that
the EU will not compromise their need to develop and eradicate
poverty. (Paragraph 61)
11. We recommend that
the Government and the EU strive to ensure that the WTO process
becomes much more open following conclusion of the Doha Round.
We believe this will encourage the delivery of more sustainable
negotiation outcomes. This would have the added benefit of helping
to ensure that countries can be held more accountable for their
negotiating stances. (Paragraph 65)
THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE WTO AND MEAS
12. We
are concerned that a lack of clarification of the legal interface
between the WTO and MEAs is leading to unnecessary uncertainty
in the formulation of new, and the application of existing, MEAs.
This therefore must be addressed as part of a successful Doha
Round. We therefore urge the Government and EC to do all in their
power to move forward on this issue. However, it is of utmost
importance that any agreement reached must acknowledge that MEA
and WTO rules have to be mutually supportive. If negotiations
develop in such a way that MEAs look set to become disadvantaged
in comparison to the current situation, the Government should
strongly resist such a conclusion. (Paragraph 77)
AN ALTERNATIVE APPROACH?
13. Moves
to address environment-trade issues may ultimately prove inadequate
unless the WTO can be used to ensure that sustainable development
is more fully considered in trade negotiations, and unless MEAs
are able to protect the environment without the risk of contravening
WTO rules. Although we accept that the Government may be correct
in saying that a new body may create new problems, the current
lack of progress on formulating a coherent approach to these issues
within the WTO suggests that an alternative approach may be needed.
(Paragraph 81)
14. We call on the
Government to raise this issue with the EC and other EU Member
States, with a view to the adoption of a policy to ensure interactions
between international organisations can be made more mutually
supportive. (Paragraph 81)
THE DOHA ROUND
15. Although
the Government acknowledges that there may be some negative environmental
consequences of the Round, we are surprised that it does not appear
to be more concerned. WTO Members have failed to consider adequately
the environmental impacts of the negotiations, making it likely
at this stage that the legacy of a completed Round will include
a loss of biodiversity and increased greenhouse gas emissions.
We urge strongly the Government and EC to pursue aggressively
a more sustainable outcome. Failure to address these issues will
give the lie to the EU and UK Government assertions that they
are at the forefront of action on climate change and sustainable
development. (Paragraph 91)
16. The EU has displayed
a lack of political will to address sustainability issues by,
for example, failing to remove agricultural market distorting
measures within the EU. Until the EU has the political will to
ensure that our negotiating positions are fully consistent with
sustainable development objectives, we can not expect other WTO
Members to take these issues seriously. The UK Government and
the EU must demonstrate clear leadership on this, even when it
may be against our short-term economic interests to do so. (Paragraph
96)
17. We commend the
Government for pushing for more action to reduce agricultural
tariffs and quotas. Although the EU and the US have sought to
address this imbalance in international trade, they have not gone
far enough. As it is widely held by WTO Members that agriculture
can help raise people out of poverty, it is very disappointing
that more has not been offered by the EU and US. A lack of movement
on these key issues has now, in part, caused the suspension of
these negotiations. The UK Government should do its utmost to
ensure that the Round does not fail in its stated development
aims, and do more to fight for the interests of the poorest people.
This not only means that the Government should work to improve
the EU offer, but should also use our special relationship to
seek to ensure that the US goes much further. (Paragraph 99)
ENSURING THAT DEVELOPING COUNTRIES BENEFIT FROM THE
ROUND
18. As
it is now known that liberalisation in the agricultural sector
may have serious consequences for some developing countries, it
is paramount that the G33 proposals to protect developing country
agriculture are taken seriously. This is needed to ensure that
the Doha Development Round can truly lead to gains for the poorest
countries. We are convinced that a level of special and differential
treatment must be granted to developing countries in agricultural
products in order to prevent the most vulnerable in these countries
from being devastated by trade liberalisation. (Paragraph 105)
19. The Government
and EC must actively engage with the G33 proposals and urge those
resistant to it to change their stance. Failure to do this could
lead to the completion of a Round which exacerbates poverty and
is therefore likely to accelerate environmental damage. Such an
outcome could be considered a fundamental betrayal of the poorest
people on Earth. (Paragraph 105)
20. Although Aid for
Trade will greatly assist poor countries in developing their capacity
for trade, this does not preclude the need for some of the poorest
countries to be able to protect their agricultural sector, or
to ease slowly into the global market. (Paragraph 107)
21. We welcome the
statement in the Aid for Trade recommendations that it should
take full account of sustainable development goals. However we
are concerned that there is little in the way of specific examples
of how the programme will indeed be made sustainable. The EC and
UK Government should make strongly the case for the inclusion
of a specific commitment to the strengthening of domestic capacity
in environmental analysis, regulation and enforcement in developing
countries. This is required to help avoid environmental degradation
being an outcome of the programme. (Paragraph 110)
AGRICULTURAL NEGOTIATIONS AND THE ENVIRONMENT
22. It
is essential that relevant MEA secretariats are granted observer
status on the WTO Agriculture Committee. MEA secretariats must
also be able to contribute effectively to the negotiations, to
ensure more effective consideration of the environment in its
deliberations.
(Paragraph 116)
23. Seeking to integrate
environmental concerns more fully into WTO agricultural negotiations
will seem like hypocrisy if we do not fully integrate this issue
into all UK policies. The fact that policy documents are still
produced by UK Government departments which fail adequately to
account for the environment makes it harder to argue a case for
more sustainable practices in the WTO. It also raises questions
as to the Government's commitment to sustainable development in
practice. (Paragraph 117)
24. In the short-term,
dealing with the question of food miles and the impact of increased
global trade on climate change is too thorny an issue for the
WTO. The Government should act to remove the most egregious of
imbalances in the international trade regime as part of a longer
process to start dealing with climate change through the WTO.
(Paragraph 124)
25. As other Members
of the WTO are unwilling to deal with climate change in the short-term,
and given its pressing nature, the UK Government and the EU must
themselves do much more to tackle emissions from international
transport. In line with our previous reports, we recommend that
transport emissions be better accounted for through, for example,
taxation of aircraft fuel, the robust inclusion of aviation in
the EU emissions trading scheme and the reduction of emissions
from shipping at European ports. The Government should also explore
the potential to help tackle this issue through consumer awareness
programmes linked to labelling of country of origin. Eventually
we consider it necessary to ensure that all the external costs
of products are internalised in their final price.
(Paragraph 125)
MAKING TRADE SUSTAINABLE
26. We
believe that in the short term there is a case for the liberalisation
of environmental goods and services, although we are sceptical
as to the extent to which any agreed list produced could be considered
sustainable. Key to this whole debate is ensuring that the goods
and services listed are relevant to developing countries. There
may also need to be flanking measures adopted so that developing
countries will not be negatively affected. (Paragraph 132)
27. Ultimately we
feel that there must be a much tighter linkage between trade policy
and sustainable development. The Government should initiate a
debate on whether it would be possible to develop a more sustainable
global trade system. This could focus on the formulation of sustainability
indicators by which to classify different products or services.
Classifications could then be used to lead more sustainable trade
through labelling schemes or more directly through tariffs on
the basis of sustainability. We accept that these issues are challenging,
but the Government must start to look for more long term solutions
to environment-trade problems. (Paragraph 132)
28. The fact that
the EU has adopted a stance against the liberalisation of natural
resources in order to avoid negative environmental impacts is
very positive and we commend the UK Government and EU for this.
(Paragraph 135)
29. We are heartened
that the revised EU Sustainable Development Strategy includes
a commitment to incorporate the principles of sustainable development
into its international trade policy. It is essential that these
do not become empty words and that they are actually translated
into concrete action. (Paragraph 137)
30. We fear that there
is still a lack of consideration of sustainable development issues
in some EU negotiating positions and call on the Government and
EU to urgently reassess our positions to ensure that they are
fully compatible with the revised Sustainable Development Strategy.
(Paragraph 138)
31. We reluctantly
accept that there will be occasions when the economic or development
benefits of a policy will mean that it is adopted, even where
there will be negative environmental impacts. It is therefore
imperative that adequate emphasis is placed on the need to adopt
flanking measures to mitigate negative environmental impacts.
Indeed, without the use of effective flanking measures, it is
unlikely that trade liberalisation can be sustainable. The significance
of such measures makes it extremely important that their effectiveness
is evaluated following adoption. (Paragraph 140)
SUSTAINABILITY IMPACT ASSESSMENTS
32. We
greatly welcome the use of SIAs in trade negotiations. Nevertheless
we are concerned that its full findings are not being incorporated
into our negotiating positions. Given that the EU SIA anticipates
that the outcome of Doha will be negative for the global environment,
and will have variable social benefits, the EU could fail in its
commitments to more sustainable trade. it is paramount that the
principles established in the Sustainable Development Strategy,
and the recommendations highlighted in the SIA, are brought into
Doha to ensure a more sustainable outcome. This may involve a
change of negotiating stances where possible, such as on agricultural
subsidies, or the full implementation of an effective range of
flanking measures to offset any negative impacts. (Paragraph 144)
33. We are concerned
that in what could have been the end stages of the Doha Round,
the EU's primary method for ensuring that trade agreements will
be sustainable, SIAs, could be described as a work in progress.
It is of utmost importance that our trade policies are sustainable
and we therefore urge the Government to ensure that the effectiveness
of the SIA process is fit for purpose by calling for its complete
reassessment. (Paragraph 146)
BILATERAL AND REGIONAL TRADE AGREEMENTS
34. Although
we are concerned about a shift of emphasis onto bilateral and
regional trade agreements from the WTO and the multilateral trading
system, we do believe that these provide a unique opportunity
for the UK Government and EU to demonstrate its commitment to
sustainable development, particularly in the short term. We should
pursue innovative agreements that seek to address global environmental
challenges through trade, such as free trade in energy efficient
goods. (Paragraph 150)
CONCLUSION
35. Conclusion
36. Should agreement
be reached on the Doha Round, we believe that the WTO, and the
international trade system itself, will be ripe for an urgent
reassessment with regards to its interaction with the environment
and sustainable development. The current system must be improved
to make it better equipped to deal with the wide-ranging environmental
and development consequences of international trade.
(Paragraph 0)
37. The Government
and the EC should now focus its efforts on getting the Doha Round
restarted, with the ultimate goal being to achieve a pro-poor,
environmentally sustainable, conclusion. Anything less than this
will mean that the developed world will have reneged on its commitment
to making international trade work for, and not against, those
people who need it most. (Paragraph 152)
| 
