It's Your Turn
Previous Consultations
Trade and Environment Roundtable
McGill School of Environment
Dorval Hilton Hotel, Montreal, Quebec
June 12, 2002
Table of Contents
Summary:
The McGill School of Environment was an excellent source of expertise and contacts, and the
participants came from a great diversity of backgrounds - from academics to business people
and scientists to government representatives. The chairman, (Chairman of the Department of
Economics at McGill) introduced the participants, Don Stephenson, from the Department of
Foreign Affairs and International Trade, Armand de Mestral of the McGill Law Faculty and
Marie-Claire Cordonier-Segger of the International Institute for Sustainable Development.
The tenor of the discussion was generally positive and there was a general agreement that the issue
of trade and the environment, although extremely complex, was a crucial element of the Doha
Development Agenda, the series of issues agreed to by ministers at the World Trade Organization
(WTO) ministerial meeting in Doha, Qatar, in November 2001.
The meeting focused on many of the intricate technical details that link environmental issues to
the trade agenda. One of the main issues for discussion was the "precautionary principle",
defined as "taking precautionary action before scientific certainty of cause and effect."(1) Another
area that was examined was the reconciliation of values in trade law, between producer interests
and the making of environmental law. Yet another was the various models that could be applied
to ongoing discussions on the environment, which will have an impact on discussions relating to
trade. And the role of the United Nations Environmental Program (UNEP) in setting
environmental standards, was also discussed
Speakers:
Don Stephenson, Director-General, Trade Policy at the Department of Foreign Affairs and
International Trade in Ottawa, opened the meeting by noting that Minister for International
Trade Pierre Pettigrew had just announced that Canada would be the first country to make public
its position on the services discussions - the GATS meetings. He outlined the nature of the
discussions that led to the Doha Development Agenda, and said that among the most interesting
elements was that the developing country representatives learned how they could use their
influence in setting the WTO agenda - in his words, they "discovered what a 'consensus
organization' means." He suggested that there was a definite "breakthrough" at Doha that
enabled the representatives to raise issues that went beyond trade alone, such as environment,
transparency and coherence, adding that it was "unthinkable" before Doha that the environment
would play such an important role.
He outlined the "three parts" of the Doha Development Agenda: the part that is negotiations,
second, the part that is still in work plan but could become part of the negotiations like labelling
and precaution. And third, the paragraphs that are "not environmental" but have a lot to do with
the environment. On the first part, the issue is how to harmonize trade measures in multilateral
environmental agreements (MEAs) with WTO rules. He suggested it would be useful if UNEP
and MEAs could "take ownership" of these areas. He outlined the nature of the current
negotiations, and suggested the agenda is still "not clear."
He pointed out that most developing countries are suspicious that protection of the environment
could be employed as a way of disguising protectionism. He said that the European Union,
which has been accused of using the environment as a non-tariff barrier, now has an interest in
environmental issues with the problems of foot-and-mouth disease and Bovine Spongiform
Encephalopathy (BSE). He listed Canada's concerns in the area of work programs and labelling,
adding that Canada supports clearer rules on the environment and trade and has published an
announcement in the Canada Gazette requesting public comments on environmental matters,
which he said was a "first step" in determining the environmental impacts of Doha, to guide the
Canadian position.
Armand de Mestral of the McGill Law Faculty opened with the statement that "what we are
really talking about is a reconciliation of values", in that there are "two different worlds"
involved: the area of trade law focusing on producer interests and the making of environmental
law, which involves a "much broader constituency." He says that the last decade showed a
"clash of cultures." He said that trade people always saw themselves "on a separate track" from
other issues, He noted that he was involved in the UN meetings on the environment in
Stockholm in 1972, and said there were different levels of discussion - of thousands of pages of
WTO agreements as well as regional trade agreements or bilateral agreements. At the same
time, there are now over a thousand international conventions on the environment and domestic
environmental law has become more complex.
He noted that there are a lot of misconceptions, pointing out that environmental people seem to
think that trade sanctions "are the best thing since Swiss cheese". But trade people are against
such sanctions as they "do not work." He declared that there is a feeling on both sides that the
"rules of the game" must be clearer.
He suggested that "de-compartmentalization" is necessary to move towards the reconciliation of
values, and that means one has to apply the concept of "sustainable development" to the debate,
as it is both an "environmental and an economic concept." He closed by saying he hoped Canada
can take a leadership role on the issues in the Doha agenda that the country did in Stockholm in
1972, and that to legislate on trade and the environment, that sovereignty has to take a "back
seat" on the environmental issue.
Marie-Claire Cordonier-Segger of the International Institute for Sustainable Development
(IISD), had just returned from the World Summit on Sustainable Development (WSSD)
preparatory meetings in Bali, Indonesia, and she supported much of the "theoretical framework"
laid out by Professor de Mestral. She suggested that by far the most contentious aspect of the
WSSD negotiations has been the trade and finance issues. She added that Canada is looked upon
as a model in attempting to reconcile those issues.
According to Ms. Cordonier Segger, sustainable development is the integration of three areas of
policy: social, economic and environmental. She reminded people that there is a social
development side of the environment and noted that the IISD) has come up with four models of
the conflict between trade and the environment.
the traditional "trade colliding with the environment" model, which she said is outdated;
the model which involves building bridges between the two communities;
the third approach is to take environment into account whenever a trade issue is being discussed;.
The fourth approach is to say "economic and competition law are built to support sustainable development."
She suggested that when environment policies do not take economic imperatives into
consideration, or if they are not economically sustainable, "they do not work."
She said that if the fourth way were to be accepted, there should be "more thinking and activism
around the Doha Development Agenda." She proposed a 1994 model from the IISD known as
the "Winnipeg principles", which include that: trade agreements should be sustainable, that they
have environmental integrity, including culture and heritage and renewable resources, and that
they be built on the principle of equity. To work, she said they suggested four operational
principles: science and precaution, international cooperation, subsidiarity, and openness - access
to information. She congratulated the Canadian government for organizing these roundtables -
"nascent, embryonic, movements toward openness."
She closed by saying not to forget "our partners in the Americas - including "33 vulnerable
developing countries", and not to forget the Least Developing Country members in the WTO;
she asked "how we can ensure that sustainable development will be a goal for Canadian trade
policy"; and "how can we ensure that governments do not go it alone" in trade negotiations, so
that civil society can be constructive in debates. She saw these roundtables as a positive force in
accomplishing the latter objective.
Discussion
"The Four Models"
The questions opened with a response to Marie-Claire Cordonier Segger's comments about the "four
models". A McGill political scientist said while the fourth model of greater communication "was
eminently reasonable", he asked her how to deal with the problem of people talking but not
understanding one another. Her response was that the greatest challenge is with social issues. She
said there are two communities that have to grapple with the debate, and while one should not have
to choose between clean air and food, there are a lot of people who are - and they have not yet been
heard from. She noted that there is a problem of coherence, as some people in international
negotiations are unaware of what has been negotiated in. And the third challenge she says is the use
of "trade principles in areas that are not trade" - such as investment, where she thinks "the WTO
has bitten off more than it can chew."
Human rights and trade
A participant described herself as coming from the human rights field, and asked how the
government saw human rights "fitting in" with the debate on trade and the environment. Don
Stephenson said that the issue is important, and that paradoxically, while three of four Canadians
support the government's position, they also tend to support the point of view of the protesters. His
interpretation is that Canadians want the benefits of trade, but they want Canadian values reflected
in the discussions. He pointed out economic growth can be good for development and human
rights, noting that one can have trade and economic growth without human rights, but one cannot
have poverty reduction or human rights without economic growth.
A participant said she was concerned about the idea of reconciling values as "politics was normally
about the exertion of will." She was unsure as to whether the nomenclature of trade should be used
to describe issues in the environment or human rights, as this would have to be "unitized" in some
quantifiable way - and it would be hard to calculate the value of a lake or a human life. Don
Stephenson agreed, saying that "it is not an issue of trade-offs, but rather trying to get both right."
The economics of trade and the environment
Another participant suggested that trade was not good for the environment, as it tends to
decrease resources more quickly. The goal of trade agreements, he suggested, was to eliminate
subsidies and noted that a recent book cited road traffic subsidies at $800 billion a year. He
suggested the cause of free trade could be better served by eliminating road subsidies and asked
if road transportation is on the table. Marie-Claire Cordonier-Segger said that we have to be
careful about eliminating subsidies for transport, as sometimes if a subsidy to transport water is
removed, the poorest people will not drink.
A participant asked if dispute panels and arbitration tribunals in NAFTA were "fair structures" to
arbitrate on issues, as they operate behind closed doors. Armand de Mestral noted his own past
involvement in WTO panels, and then moved on to describe inter-governmental disputes that he
said "reflected failures of governments to respect certain procedures." He noted the Methenex
dispute in California as "one to watch" and noted the concern of some people that this might
prevent a jurisdiction from legislating in the environment. A follow-up question dealt with the
banning of MMT in Canada.
A question was asked if there is a power play between states, in the current context, the disputes
between developing countries and the industrialized countries, how can we anticipate a different
result if the rules of the game remain the same. And in the battle between the US and the EU, in
what way can Canada use its strength to contribute to a change in the rules to benefit the
developing countries. He suggested that the regional trade groups "are changing the dynamic" in
the WTO and noted that Canada is leading at the Quad and the WTO in providing ideas and
proposals.
Citizen access and transparency
A participant asked for a description of the thinking on the citizens access to the WTO in the
area of trade and environment. Don Stephenson was not sure the dispute settlement system will
become more transparent, and noted that Canada supports the idea of "amicus briefs" but that the
developing countries do not like them, as such submissions could affect their power.
A participant asked what "transparency" means. Don Stephenson said that it means there should
be access to information and have a "parliamentary aspect" to it, allowing public input to
politicians. He said it also means internal transparency, where there are fewer "green rooms"
and more formal and informal consultations, and where documents are de-restricted more
quickly. Armand de Mestral pointed out that the appellate body recently declared that it can
accept amicus briefs and while the members did not like it, that was the law. He pointed out that
a decade ago, panel reports were available years after the panels occurred, and there is far more
transparency - he called it "night and day" - than there had been previously.
A suggestion was made by a participant that the rules at the WTO will be determined by "power
issues." He said that there can be problems with transparency, especially when members are at
different levels of power. He said it "all comes down to states being the main enforcers",
whether the regime is within the WTO, UNEP or MEAs.
A participant responded that transparency is a way of altering power relationships, as it gives
civil society a role in the negotiations. He mentioned a report undertaken with the IISD that
rejects what he called the "old idea" that prosperity results in an improved environment. He also
suggested that there is a need for a "coherent" agenda that involves capacity building and
financial support for LDCs. He said there are two reasons for this lack of coherence: there is not
enough money in ODA support to finance effective capacity building and second, each country
does its own work according to its own needs.
Marilyn Scott of the McGill School of Environment, returned to the issue of sovereignty,
suggesting that this is crucial to the environmental discussions. She asked if governments could
represent each other in order to ensure better understanding among each other.
A question was raised as to political demands that result in the increase in the marginal value of
goods, using as examples where Newfoundland insisted an ore processing plant be located there,
or that sawmills be placed in communities in B.C., and the impact on the environment of these
approaches. Armand de Mestral said that "if everyone does it, it is not prohibited."
The "precautionary principle"
A participant asked that the precautionary principle be raised, given in the last few years there
had been a recurring element in negotiations, the divergence between countries, notably in
international meetings as well as in commercial conflicts. This was raised at the Bali meetings of
the WWSD. She said "while we are talking about reconciling values that there are two opposing
approaches that in the near future may cause problems."
A participant from DFAIT said that on the precautionary principle, Canada had developed a
discussion paper and had held meetings across Canada and had circulated it in the EU and the
US as well as in Geneva. She said the debate had been at a very high level prior to Doha, but
there had been little since, as the EU had "retreated" on the issue. She says that it is a difficult
discussion, and there is a Canadian approach to the issue but that the pressure internationally has
subsided. A participant said the precautionary principle was a major area of dissent between the
United States and the EU
Armand de Mestral responded to the issue of science-based health cases, mentioning the asbestos
case at the WTO and suggested that while it was supposed to be based on the "science-based
approach" ended up being based on the "precautionary principle." He added that science will
never be the basis for resolving disputes "and that this is a values debate - as well as a pure
science debate."
Marilyn Scott of McGill mentioned that the transport associated with trade is responsible for
"many of the invasive species and the movement of infectious disease pathogens around the
world." A CIDA representative said that he wanted to share the point of view of the developing
countries. He cited the case of Aflatoxins, naturally occurring agents in some vegetables, that the
developing world blocks from shipments to reduce mortality by one person per billion - and as a
result blocked $500 million of trade with Africa. He said the developing countries will ask if
this was possible, what would be done on non-scientifically based standards. And the result, he
suggested would be that "tens of thousands of Africans will have reduced life expectancies in
exchange for that one person per billion."
UNEP, MEAs and international jurisdiction
A participant asked to hear more about what he called a "trade-MEA perspective" rather than
political issues alone. Armand de Mestral said that while the WTO deals with trade alone, it
cannot deny that there are problems with the impact of trade on the environment. And if there are
treaties signed by countries on trade and the environment, they must consider the implications of
both, and they "must speak with the same voice".
Don Stephenson said that the problem with WTO rules is "to enforce a restriction of trade by
further restrictions of trade." He suggested the issues relating to trade are converging, using the
WWSD and WTO Doha processes as examples. He mentioned that there is a conflict between
the ways of applying the codification of laws that may be linked to culture - in that the
Americans want to establish laws according to case law and the Europeans prefer to set them
according to specific rules.
The military and the environment
A teacher from a CEGEP in Montreal said he spoke on behalf of a group of 18 year olds whom
he teaches. He said the students feel "disempowered", in that their concerns are not raised at
meetings like this one and noted that the "one issue" that is not discussed in questions of trade
and the environment, is the role of the military as a polluter, and trade in military material and
weapons.
Don Stephenson replied that Canada uses the WTO to manage our trade with the United States,
asserting that "we like objective rules and objective processes for dispute settlement" to manage
that relationship. In the post-September 11 environment, he doubted the military would have
less power. He added that on trade issues, Canada "has always taken a very aggressive position
historically", and has "hit above its weight" both historically and in the trade and environment
debate. He added that it is encouraging that "people (like students) will not let us forget the big
issues."
Capital flows
The chair, Chris Green, raised the question of capital flows, in the case of a country putting
through strict environmental laws and causing capital outflows, with the importation of goods
not produced at home. The issue of so-called "pollution havens" was raised, and connected to the
aluminum foundries, which in using hydroelectricity perhaps deserve to be excluded as hydro is
not the polluter that coal-fired electricity is.
Closing Comments
Don Stephenson thanked everyone for their time, "a most valued resource", and said it was
valuable to get out of Ottawa and permits the issues to be more real. He said that in the end,
"reconciling values is what it is all about." He pointed out that CIDA was not in the trade
policy debate before, and now there are 17 departments involved in GATS. He suggested that
"people understand that everything is linked, and the way issues are dealt with is mostly in the
process itself."
Marie-Claire Cordonier-Segger summed up with a plea that subsidies that a great deal needs to
be done by the environmental community to work to ensure that there are "win-wins" on trade
and environmental issues.
Armand de Mestral noted that the GATT text was drafted in 1947, and that there was
"insufficient articulation of trade values vs. other values." He says the whole development
agenda is now on the table, and says that the "right way to go" is to "discuss the issue publicly
and openly." He mentioned that in the past, everything was done "sub rosa" at the WTO, and
that it has changed enormously. He admitted that some negotiations should be done privately, in
order "to do the right thing", such as "giving up on textile quotas."
Marilyn Scott closed by saying "it was a pleasure to work with DFAIT and she hoped that there
might be words of wisdom that make their way back to the people at DFAIT."
Interesting Links:
Trade Negotiations and Agreements website
McGill University School of Environment
International Institute for Sustainable Development
United Nations Environmental Program
World Trade Organization
1. Carolyn Raffensberger, US Scientific and Environmental health Network, White House Briefing 1999.
Back to "It's Your Turn" Main Menu
|
