4:23 AM Jun 7, 1993

'PROTECTIONISTS MASQUERADING AS ENVIRONMENTALISTS', INDIA

Geneva 5 June (Chakravarthi Raghavan) -- There can be a rational dialogue on the trade-environment nexus with those genuinely interested in environment protection, but not with protectionists masquerading as environmentalists, and "we have to be on guard" against the onslaught of these protectionists, India has said in the GATT discussions on environment, trade and development.

While the Industrialized Countries have sought to focus the environment/trade debate within the special working group on environment and trade, the developing countries have raised it in the wider complex of trade and development questions dealt with in the GATT's Committee on Trade and Development (CTD).

In the working group on environment and trade, which has been looking at existing international environment protection treaties and their trade provisions, as well as on packaging and labelling requirements, some of the industrialized countries, though not very openly, have been trying to create a kind of legitimacy for taking restrictive trade measures, on the basis of 'environment treaties' which might not be universal but regional.

This would enable the OECD countries, or the Europeans to negotiate and agree upon a treaty involving manufacturing processes considered environmentally 'unfriendly' (using the precautionary principle too) and, where the restrictions might increase the production costs, use such treaty provisions to restrict imports from countries that do not so regulate or restrict the manufacturing process.

At the April-May discussions of the group, remarks of the Nordic countries, Austria and the United States lent strength to this fear.

The developing countries, meanwhile, have sought to open up a wider and more general debate in the CTD, and use its existing mandate on monitoring and data collection to look at the so-called environment measures having an impact on the trade and development of the developing countries.

However, the industrialized countries do not appear to be anxious to engage in any debate there, pointing to the group headed by Japan's Hideotashi Ukawa on 'Environment Measures and International Trade' (EMIT). They have been equally resistant and opposed to the revival of the CTD's Sub-Committee on protective measures to look at the range of protective measures in place or being put in place in the industrialized countries against imports from the developing world.

At the CTD meeting in mid-May, the Indian Ambassador Balkrishna Zutshi presented an Indian view on the gamut of issues raised in the trade, development and environment debate. While it was strictly an Indian position, it appeared to reflect many of the concerns and viewpoints of the countries of the South.

At the request of other delegations, the extempore intervention of Zutshi has been now circulated by the Indian delegation as a text and made available to the SUNS.

In his intervention in the CTD, Zutshi saw no reason for the apprehension (of the ICs) that a general debate in the CTD might deteriorate into a 'slanging match'.

Placing his own country's views and comments in the context of the consistent position in favour of environment protection, but viewing the issue in a wider context, Zutshi noted the position taken by the Indian Prime Minister at the 1972 Stockholm Conference and the subsequent Vancouver meeting on the Habitat, that poverty itself was one of the greatest polluters.

At Rio (Earth Summit) sustainable development had been defined as "development that meets the needs of the present generation without compromising the needs of the future" and this could be expanded to say that "meeting the needs of the poor of the present generation is as important as to meet and make provisions for the needs of the future generation", the Indian ambassador said.

There were also different ways of looking at 'sustainability', he noted and asked:

In the consumption of resources, from the point of view of preservation for future generations, should the high levels of consumption be permitted indefinitely at the expense of those unable to consume or did so now at negligible levels? Or should they work for increasing consumption levels uniformly to present levels and would it be possible at all?

In some quarters sustainability could mean existing levels of high consumption should not be reduced, but sustainability should be brought about by not permitting high consumption levels elsewhere.

But one could also attempt to bring a golden mean between these two and permit increases in consumption where these are low by sacrifices on the part of those with high levels of consumption in other places and in other societies.

This debate has just begun, Zutshi said, and India was not seeking any conclusions now but merely to put the debate in the proper context of the interface between trade and environment, namely, needs and requirements of developing countries and their contribution to environmental sustainability, environmental protection.

It would be naive to think that one could protect forests if those dependent on firewood for fuel have no recourse to alternative fuels or to tell the poor in parts of the world who have to gather food and firewood to cook it in the course of the day, that they should not overexploit these forest resources because of the need to protect the environment. Nor could one talk to a woman who had to feed her children and convince her about ecology and global balance if she had no other option.

These basic issues had to be addressed. Protection of the environment was an essential issue, but it would have to be addressed in different ways, in different places and in different contexts.

In the context of developing countries, linkages related to access to those appropriate technologies which were less polluting. Some mechanisms for transmission of information and knowledge which would avoid Third World countries making mistakes of the industrialized countries in the process of development.

Another aspect of this related to protection of not only forests but biodiversity and the compensation due to those who had preserved this biodiversity.

Also, the notion of "polluter to pay" was very relevant at the international level on the question of Global Warming and Ozone depletion, Zutshi said, and drew attention to the history of the debate on Ozone and Chloroflurocarbons (CFC), in an article in the Time magazine. According to that article first the debate had been on whether or not CFC was damaging and, when it was so determined, whether the production levels had optimized. The article had also dealt with the role of a particular transnational enterprise in that debate.

(Ecology groups have pointed out that the American TNC Du Pont which made millions on the CFCs, is now set to garner the market, with funding from the GEF and Ozone treaty, to provide developing countries with substitute chemicals and/or technology transfer).

A similar debate was now going on over global warming, with many aspects still unclear including the scientific evidence whether a particular production process is damaging enough or its consequences for global warming.

"However, what is already clear is the identification of those responsible for pollution and resultant damage," Zutshi said, and added:

"In the response to the tackling of this issue a pattern is emerging which suggests that polluters are not prepared to pay the costs of cleaning up the mess. 'Polluters pay' is thus a mere slogan. In effect polluters are saying 'we want a level playing field but from now onwards'. This is not being said by me here by way of criticism but more for reflection: we all need to ponder on this."

Referring to the "strong and growing evidence of link between poverty reduction and environmental goals", Zutshi said however much the international community could lay down rules, this problem could not be controlled unless the root causes were addressed, the general context of the link between trade and environment.

The issues involved were so large and complex that they constituted an agenda for the early part of the 21st century and it was not something that could be solved or resolved over the next few months or years. But it was important that at the beginning of the process itself the principles on the basis of which they were to be pursued must be laid down.

* Firstly, environmental problems within a country with no spill-over effect should not be the concern of anyone outside.

* Secondly, environmental effects with spill-over beyond one's borders, of regional and/or of global concern, should be resolved by plurilateral/multilateral cooperation rather than each country trying to find solutions individually.

"If these two cardinal principles are accepted," Zutshi said, "we can, in course of time, build on them and find solutions to various aspects of this problem".

Another principle, he added, would be the recognition of different competences of various institutions and need to deal with individual issues within the institutions having relevant competence.

Some aspects of the interface between trade and environment were being dealt with in the working group. But what was relevant for the CTD was trade liberalization was consistent with environment protection and the realisation of environmental goals. Environmental protection could not sustain itself for any length of time unless the international trading system was open, equitable, non-discriminatory and predictable.

While the early successful conclusion of the Uruguay Round, with balanced results, would be a great contributory factor to achieve these ends, he would not suggest, as generally asserted these days, that such a successful conclusion would be a panacea for all the ills of the world. But a successful conclusion would be an important step forward in securing a juster trading system provided the results were balanced and equitable.

An important aspect of this would be expansion of market access opportunities for developing countries whose areas of interest had already been identified as agriculture, tropical products and textiles -- areas where currently illiberal trade regimes are in place.

Several other important principles in this entire debate had been incorporated in the Rio Declaration and Agenda 21. But even today, GATT placed no constraints on ability of the CPs to formulate and implement sound environmental policies, Zutshi pointed out.

"However, some notions being advanced as necessary for environmental protection -- such as border protection to equalise costs and level-playing field to overcome other environmental disadvantages -- have no place in an orderly, rational trading system and any attempt to bring them in would be disastrous and counter-productive".

"The notion that markets will do everything does not bear scrutiny," the Indian ambassador continued. "Perhaps in an ideal world that may be true. We might be able to detect who polluted the air, at what time and attribute costs accordingly. But one has to be realistic."

While he had no quarrel with the notion that pricing policies of products and processes must reflect true costs, including environmental costs, the limitations had to be recognized. It could not also be done everywhere.

"And within a country's borders the choice between prevention of environmental damage and subsequent cleaning was a valid choice."

While he had no problem with those genuinely interested in environmental protection, he had serious problems with protectionists masquerading as environmentalists.

A rational dialogue with the former was desirable and possible, but not with the latter and "we have to guard against the onslaught of protectionists moving about in the garb of environmentalists".

The CTD, Zutshi said, had as its mandate monitoring and data collection of measures having a trade effect on the developing countries. Monitoring of environmental measures having a trade effect was thus within CTD's mandate and no new authority was needed.

Zutshi recalled in this connection that on a previous occasion, India had suggested the reconvening of the CTD's Sub-committee on protective measures, but had evoked a "strong apprehensive reaction" and opposition of some delegations (the industrialized countries) but without advancing any reason.