|
Coalition letter to United States Trade Representative and Environmental Protection Agency on concerns of new WTO negotiations in Seattle. View a list of Coalition members July 16, 1999 Ambassador Susan G. Esserman Peter D. Robertson Dear Ambassador Esserman and Mr. Robertson: Our organizations are deeply concerned about the Administration’s development of positions for the Third Ministerial Conference of the World Trade Organization scheduled for Seattle this fall. WTO rules and procedures have been used repeatedly to attack environmental laws that our organizations have worked for decades to create, strengthen and protect. Equally important, the continued pressure to expand trade through broadened and intensified application of trade policy, without an equal effort to ensure that the right framework of environmental law and policy are in place, threatens to impede the conservation of our natural resources and the maintenance and improvement of a healthy environment. Yet while the Administration has sometimes raised general environmental concerns about trade and trade rules at the WTO — most recently at the March 1999 high level symposium on trade and environment in Geneva — it has failed to take the concrete actions needed to address those concerns effectively. As our groups have emphasized in past communications, the Administration can fulfill President Clinton’s pledge to put a "human face" on the global economy only if it combines its commitment to liberalizing trade with an equally strong commitment to environmental protection and sustainable development. We appreciate the Administration’s call to improve public distribution of WTO documents, enhance public participation in WTO dispute settlement proceedings, and encourage reduction of fisheries subsidies that distort trade and encourage overfishing. These efforts fall far short, however, of the comprehensive reforms needed to ensure that the world trading system does not hinder sustainable development and environmental protection. For example, we have found unacceptable the Administration’s inflexible position in recent months that no textual changes to the WTO Agreements are needed, as it indicates a reluctance to deal seriously with environmental concerns. The WTO Ministerial Conference offers an historic opportunity for the Administration to lead the review and reform that the international trade regime needs so that it will promote, rather than undermine, environmental protection and other core values of United States citizens. We stand prepared to help the Administration seize this opportunity by developing an agenda that fully recognizes environmental priorities. If, however, the Administration misses the chance to put the WTO on a course toward sustainable development, this will undermine support for subsequent negotiations at the WTO — and for United States government authority to participate in those negotiations — and invite united environmental opposition to the results. To avoid this, the Administration must develop an environmentally beneficial agenda for the Ministerial Conference, and a comprehensive plan for environmental review and reform of the WTO, that go well beyond the proposals advanced to date. We recognize that the trade and environment issues confronting the WTO will not be resolved at a single ministerial meeting. What we do expect, however, is that the Administration formulate a plan for achieving solutions, and that it demonstrate a commitment to that plan through constructive, open engagement with the public, with Congress, and relevant agencies. Despite the complexity of the details, the outline of the plan we need to see has three simple themes, described below. Although not every one of our organizations endorses every detail in this letter or the accompanying attachment, we are united in support of the overarching principles expressed here. We will evaluate the outcome in Seattle on this basis. 1. Stop WTO Expansion. The Administration must avoid rushing into more negotiations on liberalization that would place the environment and environmental laws further at risk. In light of the potential for significant environmental impacts, this is not the time to embark on further expansion of the WTO’s power or the scope of its rules. Thus, we oppose the launch of negotiations within the WTO on investment liberalization, government procurement or "early harvest" of tariff reductions. We oppose accelerated tariff reduction and other liberalization in selected sectors pending an open, participatory and balanced assessment that includes formulation of mitigating measures. Our concern is intensified with respect to environmentally sensitive natural resource sectors, such as forest and fish products. Forests and fisheries are in crisis both nationally and globally. Prioritizing liberalization in these sectors is reckless, when we know that regulations and incentives for sustainable harvesting and commerce are grossly inadequate around the world. Multilateral investment rules beyond the current Agreement on Trade-Related Investment Measures (TRIMs) should not be the subject of negotiations at the WTO. We are concerned that the United States government may be shifting its position to support partial negotiations on investment under WTO auspices. 2. Reform WTO Rules and Procedures. The WTO as it exists today urgently needs reform. The Administration must secure commitment to the reforms needed to ensure that existing WTO procedures and rules affirm, rather than hinder, environmental protection. In broad terms, the WTO’s limits of jurisdiction need to be defined more clearly, so that the WTO stays within its recognized realm of trade policy, and does not stray into the field of environmental regulation. Equally important, the WTO’s decision-making must be transparent and must involve public scrutiny and input. Achieving these goals will require major changes in both the rules and the procedures for formulating, interpreting, applying and enforcing those rules. These changes must also be reflected in any negotiations that are launched in Seattle. Substantively, both existing and future WTO rules must be written and interpreted so that they accord proper deference to national and international standards that serve legitimate environmental objectives. Procedurally, the terms of reference of each WTO working group or institutionalized body must provide for consideration of significant impacts on environment and sustainable development, and there must be mechanisms to ensure compliance. 3. Assess Impacts. The Administration must provide for an assessment of the environmental impacts of proposed multilateral trade and trade policy. The fundamental question is whether the framework of laws, policies and institutions is in place to ensure that additional multilateral steps to liberalize trade will lead to environmentally and socially beneficial outcomes. If not, then the assessment must formulate needed institutional, legal and policy changes before moving forward with further talks on liberalization. This assessment process must begin immediately. It must be open and transparent, global in scope, and conducted through a balanced, impartial process. It should be carried out in cooperation with our trading partners. A forward-looking review must be complemented by a retrospective review of past and current impacts of existing policy. The reference point for the assessment must be the procedures and criteria developed under the National Environmental Policy Act. The statement attached to this letter provides further details on our organizations’ bases for our positions and our suggestions for addressing these areas of concern. We appreciate recent overtures from the Administration that indicate openness to a more substantive dialogue, and look forward to the chance to discuss our positions further with you and your staff. Sincerely yours, David R. Downes, Center for International Environmental Law On behalf of:
cc:
Coalition Members:
Up to Top HOME | Email Signup | About Us | Contact Us | Terms of Use | © 2008 Sierra Club |
