The
WTO and Safe Trade
Bhopal, India: Handpump identified as unfit for
drinking purposes, but people have to continue to use it. ©
Greenpeace |
Greenpeace
recommendations to the World Trade Organisation
Two years after Seattle, the 142 member governments of
the World Trade Organisation (WTO) have convened another ministerial
conference in Qatar where consideration will be given to a
proposal by the G8 and EU countries to launch a new round
of trade negotiations.
Greenpeace International continues to be concerned that some
governments are pushing for further trade liberalisation and
for an expansion of the WTO's mandate, while ignoring the
environmental and social shortcomings of a deregulated global
economy, thereby frustrating rather than promoting sustainable
development.
|
The WTO's own charter provides for "the optimal use of the
world's resources in accordance with the objective of sustainable
development".
Yet the WTO continues to operate according to an outdated economic
model based on the narrow pursuit of trade liberalisation as an
end in itself. WTO decisions and policies rarely take account of
the broader goals of social welfare that trade is, in fact, supposed
to promote. Without a social framework to guide economic activity,
trade will increasingly lead the world away from sustainable development.
As a result, international trade can lead to further abuse on the
environment and natural resources, thereby increasing rather than
alleviating poverty.
The WTO's rules and institutional structure reflect a vision of
the world that has changed little since the aftermath of World War
II. At that time, Western governments established the WTO's predecessor,
the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT), as well as the
World Bank and the International Monetary Fund (IMF). Since then,
the global economy has expanded exponentially. Its environmental
impacts have grown so large that human activities now have discernible
effects on the global climate.
Most of the developing world has achieved political independence
from the imperial powers of Europe, the United States and the former
Soviet Union. Aspirations and movements for democracy and human
rights are now pervasive. Yet the WTO continues to operate according
to a "business as usual" post-World War II paradigm.
|
Irresponsibly, it continues to operate on the theory that
the use of non-renewable natural resources can expand infinitely.
WTO policies fail to acknowledge that the planetary ecosystem
imposes fixed limits on the amount of resources human beings
can consume and the amount of waste they can generate without
creating irreversible environmental harm or even ecological
catastrophe. WTO policies and practices also largely ignore
the historical disadvantages from which the developing world
suffers at the hands of many of the same countries that now
dominate world trade and the WTO. This lack of regard and
consideration for the needs of developing countries was at
the heart of the failure to reach any agreement in Seattle.
|
Greenpeace action against SAGA WIND carrying
Canadian rainforest wood and pulp. © Greenpeace
|
Despite the warnings from Seattle, the WTO also resists the democratic
principles of transparency and accountability, seeking to maintain
a decision-making process that is hidden from public view and closed
to direct public input.
The negative consequences of this outmoded approach are magnified
in that the WTO wields unprecedented power as a result of the last
round of comprehensive trade negotiations, the Uruguay Round, which
ended in 1994. Expanding well beyond the original tariff reduction
goals of the GATT, WTO rules embrace areas not previously covered
by trade policy, such as intellectual property. WTO rules are also
enforced by a dispute settlement body (DSB) that provides for efficient
adjudication of disputes and powerful sanctions to enforce compliance.
With this expansion of trade policy coverage and enforcement has
come a series of cases in which trade rules have been used to challenge
efforts by governments and civil society to address trade-related
environmental, health and safety problems.
The system is out of balance:
- The WTO's narrow pursuit of trade liberalisation is overshadowing
other equally legitimate policy objectives;
- The WTO is overreaching into areas like environmental policy-making
that are rightfully the province of other institutions; and
- Application of the WTO rules is interfering with the ability
of governments to respond to citizen demands for protection against
threats to environment and health.
There is an urgent need to implement Greenpeace's recommendations
detailed in The Greening of Doha (see p10). WTO members should not
proceed further with liberalisation of the world's markets until
they have thoroughly assessed and mitigated the adverse impacts
of the current trade rules on our collective ability to achieve
sustainable development.
Major reform of WTO rules and procedures are urgently needed. Governments
must develop new rules for an international economic system that
will support political democracy, social and environmental justice
and sustainable development. At least until governments have carried
out these assessments and reforms, they should not expand the mandate
of the WTO, and the WTO should not embark on negotiations for further
liberalisation.
|
Finally, Greenpeace is proposing that WTO member states take
the opportunity of the WTO Ministerial Conference to pressure
the United States with regard to this country´s selfish
rejection of the Kyoto Protocol.
We call on WTO member states to say before arriving in Doha
that they will not discuss the possibility of a new round
of trade liberalisation if the US does not agree to ratify
the Kyoto Protocol. This Protocol is one of the key international
legal instruments required to balance the expansion (globalisation)
of international trade and economic law with environmental
sustainability requirements.
Rejection of the Kyoto Protocol by the USA could fatally
undermine this pillar of international environmental law,
should it not enter into force. If it does enter into force
without the USA, it would be unfair on other countries if
US businesses are to obtain competitive advantage from the,
in effect, subsidisation of their pollution.
It is hoped that entry into force of the Kyoto Protocol occurs
by or around the World Summit on Sustainable Development in
September of 2002, with the ratification by Japan, the EU,
Russia and Central and East European countries. The Bonn Ministerial
Agreement on the implementation of the Kyoto Protocol adopted
at Part II of the Sixth Conference of the Parties to the UN
Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) on 25 July
2001, includes a legally binding compliance regime for the
Kyoto Protocol which would be adopted at the first meeting
of the Parties to the Protocol. However, following the adoption
of the Bonn Agreement (which did not include the USA), Australia,
assisted by Canada, Japan and the USA attempted to change
the legally binding character of this compliance regime.
The Doha WTO Ministerial Conference and the 7th Meeting of
Contracting Parties to the UNFCCC will take place back-to-back,
the latter being scheduled in Marrakech, 29 October to 9 November
2001. According to plans, the Kyoto Protocol compliance regime
is to be completed in Marrakech with a view to its adoption
at the first meeting of the Parties to the Kyoto Protocol.
But one can expect that Australia, assisted by Japan, Canada
and the USA will continue to undermine the legally binding
nature of the draft compliance regime of the Kyoto Protocol.
Given this context we urge WTO member states to use the
opportunity of the WTO ministerial conference to:
- State before arriving in Doha that they will not discuss
the possibility of a new round of trade liberalisation if
the US does not agree to ratify the Kyoto Protocol; and
Insist that the Kyoto Protocol has a legally binding compliance
regime with binding penalties for non-compliance.
If the US continues to refuse to ratify the Kyoto Protocol,
WTO member states who support Kyoto should also consider bringing
that country before a WTO Dispute Settlement Panel. This would
be perfectly appropriate and relevant, because the US position
on Kyoto is providing the equivalent of a hidden subsidy for
their domestic industry, inconsistent with WTO rules.
Linking the new round to the Kyoto Protocol is fair also because
the transport sector - which is enhanced by international
trade - is the one with currently the highest increase in
CO2 emissions. The WTO therefore has a special responsibility
in addressing this issue.
|
Want more information? Download
the Safe Trade in the 21st Century report (Pdf - 559k)
Greenpeace
recommendations to the World Trade Organisation
|
|
|
