Simon Retallack, IFG

When the WTO Ministerial Conference officially opens today, delegates will begin discussing a number of proposals environmental groups argue could seriously harm the environment if adopted.

Despite attempts by WTO Director-General Mike Moore and U.S. Trade Representative Charlene Barshevsky on Monday to reach out to the environmental community by proposing to assess the environmental implications of any new round, new measures are being advocated that could clearly threaten the global environment.

— The United States’ proposal to introduce a clause this week into the WTO’s Agreement on Agriculture would direct the WTO to adopt new disciplines to enable "timely," "predictable," and "science-based" rules for agricultural biotechnology products; ensuring unfettered market access for genetically engineered food and seeds. Under this plan, importing countries would find it virtually impossible to exclude biotech products, as the precautionary principle could no longer be applied and governments would have to overcome impossible hurdles of scientific proof within a highly restricted period of time.

The U.S. is now proposing to combine that proposal with a Japanese and Canadian initiative to set up a biotech working group at the WTO to decide if the rules governing such products are adequate, and if not, to propose new rules. If adopted, these proposals would prevent the development of a strong international Biosafety Protocol and ensure the primacy of free trade in genetically engineered agricultural products, which an increasing number of scientists fear could pose serious risks to human health and the environment.

— The U.S. proposal to abolish tariffs and subsidies on agricultural products, primarily from Europe, could undermine chemical-free organic agriculture. That is because subsidies that have proved vital to support its growth would be eliminated and small-scale farmers that produce food sustainably would be undercut by a flood of cheaper, industrially produced imports that would follow market opening.

— The U.S. Advanced Tariff Liberalization initiative on the negotiating table would eliminate tariffs on forestry, fish, gems and jewels, chemical and energy products by 2004, stimulating increased global demand in these products as the cost of buying them falls. Without the introduction of new domestic sales taxes on such products, this plan will lead to increased logging, fisheries depletion, environmentall destructive mining, chemical pollution, and greenhouse gas emissions. Even the Clinton White House concedes that its proposal would lead to an 11 percent increase in timber harvest in Finland, a 9.2 percent increase in Australia; a 7.2 percent increase in Sweden; and a 4.4 percent increase in Indonesia.

— The European Union’s proposition to direct the WTO to begin negotiations for an agreement on investment could see the introduction of rules on "expropriation," "performance requirements," and "national treatment" that would severely restrict governments’ ability to protect the environment. Expropriation rules could be used to classify public health or environmental laws or increases in taxation as illegal forms of "expropriation" of profits from planned investments. Performance requirements rules could prevent governments imposing investment conditions on foreign corporations, such as labeling products, limiting exports of natural resources, and other environmental requirements. The application of national treatment rules to investment, meanwhile, would prohibit governments from targeting subsidies and support to local, environmentally sustainable businesses, as foreign-based corporations would have to be treated as if they were national or local companies.

— The elimination of Non-Tariff Measures — which include any government policy that may affect or ‘distort’ trade — is also slated for discussion and could lead to the removal of important environmental protections.

There are, to be sure, a number of measures on the negotiating table at the that if adopted could bring some environmental benefits. But if subsidies are removed from sustainable fishing and agricultural practices as well, if tariffs on wood, fish, mineral, chemical and energy products are removed wholesale, and if the WTO adopts investment liberalization and further non-tariff barrier elimination,

home