Examination of Witnesses (Questions 80-90)
MR ANDREW
HOPE, MR
IAIN MACVAY
AND MR
IAN EMSLEY
11 JULY 2006
Q80 Mr Vaizey: But very good for
the lawyers.
Mr MacVay: Very good for the lawyers.
Q81 Mr Vaizey: Who need all the help
they can get, let us face it.
Mr MacVay: Indeed.
Q82 Mr Vaizey: You heard me talk
earlier to the RSPB about why Doha is not working in terms of
the environment; do you share a similar critique to the RSPB about
the Doha round and its lack of progress on environmental matters?
Mr Hope: All multilateral negotiations
are, by definition, very long and complex and an arduous process.
As I was saying earlier, the fact that it has been possible to
make such limited process on the core trade issues means that
there has been no time of significance to address the environmental
issues, and if there is not progress on the core issues then the
potential for those issues to become addressed is much reduced.
Q83 Mr Vaizey: I touched on the mechanics
about the Defra team, the RSPB's criticism that they were perhaps
were not completely appraised of all the potential environmental
impacts of the trade negotiations. Is that something that perhaps
your members have witnessed?
Mr Hope: I am not, perhaps, sufficiently
experienced in this, but my contact with the UK Government is
that in advance of negotiations of this type it is professional
in ensuring that there is a proper linkage between the departments,
but recognising that when you get to the actual negotiations you
have to have one or two people who have the mandate and some flexibility
within that mandate to proceed, and I do know that all government
departments are actively involved in the preparation of the trade
negotiations, including Defra.
Q84 Mr Vaizey: Some people have talked
about the relationship between multilateral environmental agreements
and the WTO being clarified and the Chairman talked to the RSPB
earlier about potentially setting up a new body to run alongside
the WTO. Is that something you have considered and looked at?
Mr Hope: It is not something that
we at ICC have looked at or would have views on one way or the
other, but what we do believe is that where there are international
issues of this type they need to be addressed by multilateral
agreements. What institutions one then puts into place is a decision
that flows from that; although of course there are many bodies
within the United Nations that have been set up to look at environmental
issues, including climate change, and have the authority to make
recommendations and provide frameworks at the present time.
Q85 Mr Vaizey: Just to end with a
sort of big picture question, one has to balance the pros and
cons of trade policy; what is the best way, do you think, to ensure
that environmental impacts are properly accounted for when discussing
trade policy, when formulating trade policy?
Mr Hope: Outside of the Doha specifically,
you are being more general.
Q86 Mr Vaizey: Is there a magic wand
approach?
Mr Hope: My colleagues may have
a suggestion but, no, I do not think that there is a magic wand
approach. The concept of sustainable development is an extremely
valuable and important one, and a lot of work continues to be
done on how that can in practice be delivered, and it is the two
components: there has to be the development and there has to be
the sustainability. I think it is right that international organisations,
including the UN bodies, continue to increase our understanding
of how that is in practice delivered.
Mr MacVay: If I may add to that,
I would recommend to you the paper done by the European Communities—which
I presume the UK Government had a big role in—for the negotiations
which lists out exactly that parallel process of all the different
entities and actually lists all the organisations which should
be included in consultation. It is very long, going over three
pages.
Mr Emsley: I have to think through
the question you asked—
Q87 Mr Vaizey: It was an open-ended
question; you can answer it any way you see fit.
Mr Emsley: In general we take
the view that there is no inherent conflict, as Andrew has said,
between trade and environment. Basically, trade brings growth
or is highly supportive of growth, and the richer we are the more
we tend to value the environment. That is fine, as long as the
environmental impacts that you are looking at are ones that are
faced by the countries in question. Where it is much more difficult
of course is where the environmental impacts fall outside the
country's borders to a greater extent. This obviously raises considerable
challenges of ensuring that compatibility, and a particular example
that is close to my heart is the question of burning coal in developing
countries that are richly endowed with coal; how are we going
to persuade those countries to use that endowment in a way that
does not contribute to climate change? I honestly believe that
the multinational environmental agreement route has to be the
route to go, and that using the WTO to put pressure on countries
to move in a way that is more globally environmentally acceptable
could be counter-productive. We have to find a way to essentially
incentivise those countries, offer them a carrot rather than a
stick, both for reasons of effectiveness but also of justice;
after all we have essentially caused the problem up until now.
I was interested in the comments about the World Bank and the
20 billion energy fund, which I think could play an important
role in incentivising demonstration projects that are sorely lacking
in this area, which would give a tangible demonstration of what
is possible and would allow for much more constructive engagement
by developing countries in meeting those requirements. Willy-nilly,
we believe they are going to burn their coal, to be blunt, and
they can do it in an environmentally responsible way or not; the
question is how you persuade them to do that responsibly, and
brandishing the WTO in my view is certainly not the correct approach
in the first instance.
Q88 Mr Vaizey: MEAs are better?
Mr Emsley: Absolutely.
Q89 Chairman: Can I just ask you,
you will hopefully be familiar with the corporate leaders group
which has been pressurising the Prime Minister to act more urgently
and to consider more urgently new international frameworks to
deal with climate change. Is that an approach that you support?
Mr Hope: Without going into the
specifics of their proposals, certainly the ICC's view is that
there is a significant challenge to address with climate change,
that we need to work within multilateral frameworks to provide
solutions for that and that technology and incentives for the
wider technology provide a tool that is available. The current
frameworks of the Kyoto Protocol et cetera are a partial solution,
but not a full solution and clearly there needs to be much more
done to address a comprehensive global response.
Q90 Chairman: The corporate leaders
group is a sort of ad hoc group of senior business figures. They
are obviously very proactive in this agenda and you obviously
have an environmental department or person or people who consider
these issues: is the ICC proactively pushing new measures on climate
change, addressing the issue?
Mr Hope: ICC is represented at
the various global meetings on climate change, comments on party
briefings et cetera and we have a clear statement of our views
and recommendations that I can certainly send you a copy of for
use, but in summary it is recognising the need for a global framework
and to recognise the importance of technology and the potential
of technology, the sharing of good practice and of good standards
globally.
Chairman: Thank you all very much for
a very interesting session; it will be very useful in our report,
I am sure. Thank you again.
| 
