|
New WTO Trade Talks Increase Environmental Risks, Show that Fast Track is the Wrong Track After the World Trade Organization (WTO) meeting that recently wrapped up in Doha, Qatar, Congress has all the more reason to reject "fast track" trade legislation (H.R. 3005) introduced by Rep. Bill Thomas (R-CA). In Doha, trade ministers launched a sweeping "new round" of trade talks aimed at eliminating so-called "non-tariff" trade barriers. Unfortunately many of these "non-tariff" trade barriers are our hard-won environmental, health, and safety standards. By rejecting fast track, Congress would preserve its power to ensure that US trade negotiators do not trade away our environment as the negotiating round moves forward. The Doha Declaration raises many serious concerns about environmental protection at home and abroad. Investment In a landmark decision, the Doha meeting launched a Working Group on investment that opens the door to full-scale negotiations in two years. This working group could set the stage to incorporate NAFTA's infamous investor lawsuit provisions into the WTO. In fact, the Doha declaration specifically holds up regional investment agreements, such as NAFTA, as models to emulate. Under NAFTA's investment provisions, global corporations gained broad rights to sue national governments for cash damages if laws, regulations, or court rulings interfere with a company's business plans. Adopting such rules in the WTO could cripple environmental progress worldwide as governments are forced to pay huge sums to global corporations for the privilege of enforcing or improving their environmental laws. Services Services negotiations, given a boost in Doha, could result in sharp limitations on the ability of governments to regulate such environmentally-significant activities as toxic waste management; water diversion, extraction, and supply; mining and oil drilling; construction and development; and natural resources management. "Market access" rules could, for instance, prevent governments from limiting the number of companies drilling for oil in ecologically sensitive areas or operating "big box stores" outside urban growth boundaries. Likewise the Services agreement could require that domestic regulations not be "more burdensome than necessary." Because many industries view the entire fabric of domestic environmental, health and safety law as an "unnecessary burden", we are likely to see successful challenges under such a rule to safety standards for drinking water supply, pesticide application, and toxic waste disposal. In addition, the Services talks could prohibit domestic laws that "affect the conditions of competition" in ways that inadvertently give the edge to domestic suppliers. Thus a state law requiring that renewable sources provide a certain share of the energy supply could be successfully challenged by foreign countries that produce energy from fossil fuels. The Services talks could even create pressure to turn public water services over to profit-driven corporations. If a public utility charges a fee for water delivery, thereby waiving the so-called "government authority exemption," then the "national treatment" rule could require that foreign corporations be allowed equal standing with the public agency to bid to provide the service. If the company is successful, profit-driven pressure to minimize costs could then impair water quality. Trade & Environment Short of military force, trade sanctions are the only means available to enforce Multilateral Environmental Agreements (MEAs) such as the Montreal Protocol, which sets limits on chemicals that are destroying the earth's protective ozone shield. Until now, the WTO has not had the authority to determine when nations can use trade sanctions to enforce these kinds of agreements. All of that is about to change. Talks initiated in Doha actually aim to allow WTO review before an MEA can be enforced. As US Trade Representative Bob Zoellick has stated, "We ensured…that others will not be able to use the MEAs as tools to restrict U.S. trade." By giving trade rules preeminence, Doha could one day be remembered as the conference that pulled the teeth from international environmental protection. The only good environmental news to emerge from Doha is that trade ministers agreed to reduce subsidies for the fishing industry that contribute to the depletion of fish stocks worldwide. Regrettably, this important step forward in the relationship between trade and the environment has been overshadowed by many steps backwards. Conclusion: Congress Should Reject Fast Track Under the fast track legislation (HR 3005) now sought by House Republican leaders, Congress would give up its right to amend trade agreements that have the potential to undercut domestic and international environmental, health, and safety standards. Given the threat that future WTO agreements pose to the environment, Congress should reject this fast-track legislation and retain its right to amend trade agreements that are not in the public interest. Doing so would not eliminate future trade agreements. It would simply preserve Congress's constitutional role as a "check and balance" on the power of executive-branch trade negotiators, and just might save our environment from new risks that emerged in Doha. Up to Top HOME | Email Signup | About Us | Contact Us | Terms of Use | © 2008 Sierra Club |
