Feb 30, 1993
TBT RULES MAY WEAKEN ENVIRONMENT PROTECTION, SAYS WWF
Geneva 3 Feb (Chakravarthi Raghavan) -- The proposed Uruguay Round agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT) and Decisions of Contracting Parties on application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary (S & P) measures could come in the way of environment protection and sustainable development and should be changed to enable mutually supportive trade and environment policies, according to a WWF report. "In its present form, the TBT agreement drawn up by Uruguay Round negotiators, will cripple national environment policies and counter efforts to conserve the Global Commons," Charles Arden- Clarke a policy analyst at the World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF) told newsmen Wednesday. There is also need for something like the EC cohesion fund contemplated under the Maastrictht treaty, and this could be set up outside of GATT to deal with global questions as contemplated in the Rio Summit accords, he said. The report, prepared for the World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF) by two environment lawyers James Cameron and Halina Ward, associated with the London-based Foundation for International Environment Law and Development (FIELD), argues that the new rules would mean international standards would set a ceiling for environmental, health and safety regulations and individual countries with better environmental standards would risk retaliation through the GATT unless they complied with trade-biased rules. Third World trade negotiators however questioned this view, arguing that what was being sought to be prevented are technical standards being set or applied which, under the guise of protecting health, safety or environment or consumers are disguised measures of protection to local industry or trade or used as a disguised measure of discrimination against countries. The history of the industrial world vis-à-vis the Third World has been one of using every trick of the trade -- technical standards --to keep out competitive imports, and the South has reason to be wary. Without some international disciplines, and countries being forced to justify their measures in a multilateral forum, environment could easily be used as a catchall measure of protection. Unilateralism by the powerful, whether to impose different economic policies and systems, open up markets to their investors and products or for environment reasons or even for protection of the global commons would run counter to any international rule of law and a return to colonialism and the white man's burden, Third World observers said. "The question of democratic accountability of GATT processes will be crucial in the aftermath of the Uruguay Round, because of the enhancement of the agreement's legal power," Charles Arden-Clarke argues in a foreword to the report. "The Multilateral Trade Organization (MTO) ....will have greater legal and economic force than any trade organization has ever had in the past and will produce significant conflicts with other multilateral agreements, including environmental ones, and place governments in the extremely difficult position of having to justify national policies that support sustainable development but which are apparently incompatible with the GATT." Countries should have flexibility in setting standards and international standards should not become the ceilings, Arden- Clarke said. The WWF was not happy with the impasse in the Round or look favorably at a possible failure, he said in replying to questions. The WWF favored a rule-based trading system. Any international trading system where large countries bully small ones would not be sustainable, he said. There should be an element of 'justification' required for national rules and measures and a proper dispute settlement mechanism to deal with the trade and environment questions, he added. The WWF document argues for ability of countries (setting the standards and restricting the imports) to be able to differentiate between products on the basis of their production and processing methods, citing as an example of such (from the WWF view) desirable action in differentiating between products from sustainably managed forests and unsustainably managed forests. The document also appears to argue in favor of countries being able to have standards with "extra-territorial effect", and recognition to the 'proportionality' principle as well as 'precautionary' principle in judging environment standards and their effects on trade. The report in its recommendations for amending the texts wants: