Examination of Witnesses (Questions 120-124)
MR GARY
CAMPKIN, MR
NEIL HARVEY
AND MR
STEVE BARNETT
20 JULY 2006
Q120 Joan Walley: I do not understand
how if you are rejecting the list system.
Mr Campkin: Trade liberalisation
in and of itself through the NAMA negotiations and, indeed, trade
in environmental services through the negotiations on GATS will
do that. It goes back to the notion of having an ambitious and
balanced conclusion to the round. Within the negotiations itself,
the NAMA and within the GATS, we think that will deal with the
issue.
Mr Harvey: Can I say, there is
a list system already in place in the WTO for a sector and that
is for pharmaceutical ingredients. It was agreed in the Uruguay
round that ingredients that go to pharmaceuticals should be zero-rated
for duty if they were only used in pharmaceuticals, so for sole
use. There is a distinct tariff code for pharmaceutical ingredients,
so it is relatively easy to say, "Yes, those ingredients
only go to pharmaceuticals". Customs officers do not have
an issue in terms of what the chemicals may go into because they
are just used for pharmaceuticals. We do not have a problem with
the list system if it is run in a very transparent way. It is
not clear to us what an environmental good is, no-one has defined
it. I will give you another example. If a water treatment plant
qualified as an environmental good, the chemicals which the plant
relies on to work may not be because they have duel use. They
may be used in other sectors which may not have such environmental
benefits. How does a customs officer know that a chemical is going
to be used in a water treatment plant or in a chemicals complex?
He is not going to know that.
Q121 Joan Walley: If I can move on
from pharmaceuticals to fisheries. You argue that trade liberalisation
will be good for fisheries. Having been out at the World Summit
on Sustainable Development and having met many people from countries
all around the world who are very concerned about the impact of
trade liberalisation on fisheries and what it could mean to unsustainable
levels of extraction for local communities, I am interested in
how you justify your comments that trade liberalisation will be
good for fisheries.
Mr Campkin: The comments in our
evidence were related to the fact that in many instances there
are subsidies given to fisheries industries around the world which
encourage unsustainable practices. We believe that through the
trade liberalisation negotiations more effective use of resource
will be encouraged by trade liberalisation because it will remove
the need to provide some of those subsidies and, therefore, will
change the practices within the fishing industry.
Q122 Joan Walley: Are you not afraid
that you could end up with large commercial trawlers going in
and hoovering up fish supplies and fish stocks? Are you not concerned
about the effect that could have on local markets?
Mr Campkin: I think you raise
a particularly important issue. Of course there is concern, but
the comments specifically in our paper relate to the subsidies
that are provided in some countries to the fishing industry which
we believe promote unsustainable practices. It is that which those
comments in our paper focus on.
Q123 Joan Walley: You have not met
any processes in respect of the concerns that have been expressed
to us which I have just outlined, including from different NGOs?
Mr Campkin: I cannot offer any
other comment on that particular issue.
Q124 Chairman: Thank you very much
for your evidence this morning, it has been very useful. If we
have one or two more queries on the timber trade licensing, we
may write to you and perhaps we can get a written response to
those queries.
Mr Campkin: I would be very happy
to respond to any further questions, Chairman.
Chairman: Thank you very much. Sorry
that we were a bit late starting.
| 
