WTO Public Symposium 2003: Session I - Relationship between MEAs and the WTO

Panelists and Viewpoints

Panel Moderator: Mr. Kym Anderson, Professor, Executive Director School of Economics and Centre for International Economic Studies , University of Adelaide

The chairman opened the session by commenting on the timely nature of the discussion. Since Doha, he explained, there have been two tracks of work on the MEA – WTO conflict. The first is that which pertains to paragraphs 32 , 33, and 51 of the Doha Declaration. The second focus is the negotiations in the Council on Trade and Environment (CTE) special session, as mandated by paragraph 31 of the Doha Declaration. The CTE is charged with the challenge of clarifying the relationship between MEAs and WTO agreements, as only 20 of the 200 MEAs currently in existence include trade measures. The task includes adopting procedures for information exchange between the bodies as well as deciding how to grant observership to MEA secretariats.

Ms. Magda Shahin, Ambassador, Embassy of Egypt, Greece

Magda Shahin, the ambassador to Greece for Egypt and a professor of economics at the American University in Cairo, began by noting the potential danger of what she referred to as a “never-ending issue”. Calling the MEA-WTO problem a “vicious circle”, she said that if the current situation persists, MEAs will begin to undermine the decision-making capacity of the WTO.

With this warning in place, she directed those in the audience to Article 20 of the GATT, certain sections of which say that protection of the environment can be cited as a reason for bypassing WTO trade rules. She explained that the issue and its implications go beyond the GATT.

Shahin then posited that legalizing trade measures for environmental purposes is not in the interest of developing countries. Legitimizing this process in the WTO would amount to “covert protectionism” and would affect the rules and principles of the WTO. She then referred to the “necessity rule” (whether the trade measure adopted for environmental reasons is the “least trade-restricting” measure possible). She said that the linkage between necessity and environment calls on the precautionary principle (1).  She also raised the issue of burden of proof: whose should have the responsibility of gathering scientific proof of the cause and effect relationship between. She believes this burden should lie on the country that invokes Article 20. Why, she asked, should the challenging country have to shoulder it? Then, she briefly questioned which is higher in a hierarchy, MEAs or the WTO.

Finally, Shahin discussed the issue of specific trade obligations and measures mentioned in MEAs. Those that are inconsistent with WTO rules are relevant to the analysis of the MEA-WTO issue. Should Article 20 automatically be applied to them all, or should they go to dispute case-by-case within the WTO? Shahin said that the Article 20 approach with strict restrictions would be better for developing countries. Patient environmentalists, however, would be willing to take a case-by-case approach because that would lend itself to a long-run integration of sustainable development concerns into the WTO debate. This would mean accommodating MEAs with currently consistent measures but postponing the thornier agreements to a later date. Shahin disagrees with this approach because it would prolong the process of dealing with this issue in the WTO. She thinks that the next round is already overburdened and it would be wise to avoid any disputable issues.

Mr. Richard G. Tarasofsky, Senior Advisor on Trade and Bio-diversity – International Union for the Conservation of Nature

Mr. Tarasofsky, a Canadian Lawyer based in Germany, has worked on many MEAs (Biodiversity, Climate Change, and CITES). He believes that the MEA-WTO conflict is quite real, as he forsees a trend in which MEAs will increasingly rely on trade measures. The fact that the US is reluctant to join these treaties further stacks the odds in favor of a conflict. This potential, he says, has chilled the development of environmental measures recently. Therefore, clarification on this issue could do no harm.

Tarasofsky advocates a division of labor based on respective competencies. MEAs should use trade measures to arrive at their environmental goals and the WTO should ensure that the environmental trade measures aren’t protectionist. As for mechanisms to ensure that synergies are uncovered and exploited, he thinks that the current negotiation mandate is inadequate and does not address key issues such as non-parties and non-trade measures.

Tarasofsky believes there are also other problems with the process: it is one-sided and there are risks involved with the single undertaking mandate of the Doha agenda,. This means that there is potential for some countries to offer concessions on this issue in exchange for gains in other areas of the negotiation. Tarasofsky, in conclusion, said that abandoning this issue is risky, but also suggested that all parties become involved to make the issue more than a WTO-led effort.

Further Comments by Panelists and Delegates

Synergies

Both a gentleman representing the Kuwait Petroleum Company and a delegate from the European Commission mentioned the potential for a positive outcome from these negotiations. The Kuwaiti used the term “win win win” to describe the situation of mutual supportiveness that may arise from the cooperation between MEA secretariats and the WTO.

Technical assistance for MEAs

A delegate from the Egyptian mission was particularly concerned by how MEAs participants will be able to acquire sufficient knowledge of trade issues in order to become effectively involved in the relationship-defining process. He noted that the WTO is a very technical body and that the environmentalists from the MEAs may lack understanding.

Developed vs. developing country viewpoints

A member of the audience wanted to clarify that this issue is not the same for developed and developing countries. For the North, he explained, it is all about the environment, but for the South it has more to do with development. An individual from the World Development Movement supported this argument by questioning why the Doha round of trade negotiations includes environmental concerns in at all.

(1) The precautionary principle is the idea that when an activity raises threats to harm human health or the environment, actions should be taken to end it even if the proof of cause and effect is inconclusive.