WTO: 10 years on and none the wiser
Daniel Mittler | 08.03.2005 11:29 | Globalisation | World
The World Trade Organization (WTO) turns 10 this year. It claims to have changed for the better. But the reality looks different. The WTO undermines development and environmental protection, argues Daniel Mittler of Greenpeace International.
WTO: 10 years on and none the wiser
Ten years ago, the World Trade Organization opened its doors on Lake Geneva “to protect and preserve the environment” and to achieve “the optimal use of the world’s resources in accordance with the objectives of sustainable development” . Over the last decade these promises have been broken. Development is everything but sustainable. Particularly in countries that have followed the WTO’s recipe and liberalized extensively, the rich have got richer and the poor have got poorer.
Countries are competing to trade more, production is increasing and the use of natural resources is spiralling upwards. One fifth of global oil consumption is just to move goods around the world and one third of global trade is in like products. Apples are flown from California to Europe, while apples from New Zealand are flown to California.
In 2000 no one was celebrating the WTO’s fifth anniversary. A UN body then declared it a “nightmare for developing countries” and the environmental dangers of the WTO had become well known through trade wars over dolphins and tuna. As a result of the demonstrations in Seattle, public disenchantment with the organization was widespread.
But things are different now, or so the WTO will say. It will no doubt use its anniversary to claim that it has changed for the better. The environment, it will say, is now officially on the agenda and development is the very name of the current “Doha Development Round”. True, the WTO is talking about the environment. But these discussions are going nowhere. The environment was not important enough to be included in the “we will keep talking” deal, that governments reached in Geneva last July. While the environmental state of the planet is deteriorating, WTO diplomats prefer to argue whether or not the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP) should be allowed to attend their meetings on the environment.
The WTO is talking about global agreements to protect the environment (known as multilateral environmental agreements, MEAs). But the discussions are ruefully inadequate and so narrow in scope, that there is nothing to be gained for the environment. Over the last three years, governments could not even agree on the nature of the talks.
Meanwhile, the WTO is still used to undermine and “chill” public interest policies. Progressive environmental policies are routinely attacked as “not compatible with the WTO”. The ongoing WTO trade war by USA, Canada and Argentina against the EU’s Genetically Modified Organisms (GMO) regulation, for example, is a clear attempt to undermine the “Biosafety Protocol”. The Biosaftey Protocol explicitly allows governments to prohibit GMO imports if they are concerned about impacts on public health. The US is attacking the EU and telling the rest of the world: “Don’t you dare to use the rights that you have under the Biosafety Protocol. If you do, it may cost you dearly at the WTO.” We can only guess how many progressive policies that could protect people’s health and the environment never make it to the statute books due to this WTO threat.
The WTO’s lack of sincerity on the environment is nowhere more plain to see than in its refusal to accept the precautionary principle; a key principle in environmental governance which allows countries to take action to protect the environment even where there is scientific uncertainty. When governments try to apply the precautionary principle and do the right thing, they are told that they might get into trouble with the WTO. For example, the EU’s attempt to regulate chemicals and potentially replace harmful chemicals with available alternatives is under attack by the US and big business as “WTO incompatible”.
On development, things do not look much better. 1.1 billion people now live on less than a dollar a day . True, in 2004 Brazil and India were asked to join the “power club” of countries, which fought over deals behind closed doors in Geneva. But the rest of the world is still excluded and the basis for current trade talks is extremely biased in favour of developed countries. Vague promises to end export subsidies are used by rich country governments to extract further concessions on industrial products, services and environmentally sensitive sectors such as forest products and fisheries from developing countries. Key issues, such as cotton, on which the livelihood of millions depends, have been parked in a working group.
The WTO has failed to deliver its declared aim of sustainable development over the last ten years. Trade liberalization has led to more trade, but not to more equitable trade. The WTO now talks about the environment, but it also continues to pose a danger to precaution and environmental rules.
It is time for a new start in the global trade regime. The Millennium Development Summit in New York this September presents world leaders with an opportunity to take a new direction. Governments should agree a global review of the social and environmental impacts of WTO-driven trade liberalization so far. This review should be the basis for a trade system that puts sustainable development and the environment at its heart – not just into its Preamble.
Happy Birthday, WTO. May you never reach adulthood.
Daniel Mittler is Greenpeace International's Trade Policy Advisor, www.greenpeace.org
Ten years ago, the World Trade Organization opened its doors on Lake Geneva “to protect and preserve the environment” and to achieve “the optimal use of the world’s resources in accordance with the objectives of sustainable development” . Over the last decade these promises have been broken. Development is everything but sustainable. Particularly in countries that have followed the WTO’s recipe and liberalized extensively, the rich have got richer and the poor have got poorer.
Countries are competing to trade more, production is increasing and the use of natural resources is spiralling upwards. One fifth of global oil consumption is just to move goods around the world and one third of global trade is in like products. Apples are flown from California to Europe, while apples from New Zealand are flown to California.
In 2000 no one was celebrating the WTO’s fifth anniversary. A UN body then declared it a “nightmare for developing countries” and the environmental dangers of the WTO had become well known through trade wars over dolphins and tuna. As a result of the demonstrations in Seattle, public disenchantment with the organization was widespread.
But things are different now, or so the WTO will say. It will no doubt use its anniversary to claim that it has changed for the better. The environment, it will say, is now officially on the agenda and development is the very name of the current “Doha Development Round”. True, the WTO is talking about the environment. But these discussions are going nowhere. The environment was not important enough to be included in the “we will keep talking” deal, that governments reached in Geneva last July. While the environmental state of the planet is deteriorating, WTO diplomats prefer to argue whether or not the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP) should be allowed to attend their meetings on the environment.
The WTO is talking about global agreements to protect the environment (known as multilateral environmental agreements, MEAs). But the discussions are ruefully inadequate and so narrow in scope, that there is nothing to be gained for the environment. Over the last three years, governments could not even agree on the nature of the talks.
Meanwhile, the WTO is still used to undermine and “chill” public interest policies. Progressive environmental policies are routinely attacked as “not compatible with the WTO”. The ongoing WTO trade war by USA, Canada and Argentina against the EU’s Genetically Modified Organisms (GMO) regulation, for example, is a clear attempt to undermine the “Biosafety Protocol”. The Biosaftey Protocol explicitly allows governments to prohibit GMO imports if they are concerned about impacts on public health. The US is attacking the EU and telling the rest of the world: “Don’t you dare to use the rights that you have under the Biosafety Protocol. If you do, it may cost you dearly at the WTO.” We can only guess how many progressive policies that could protect people’s health and the environment never make it to the statute books due to this WTO threat.
The WTO’s lack of sincerity on the environment is nowhere more plain to see than in its refusal to accept the precautionary principle; a key principle in environmental governance which allows countries to take action to protect the environment even where there is scientific uncertainty. When governments try to apply the precautionary principle and do the right thing, they are told that they might get into trouble with the WTO. For example, the EU’s attempt to regulate chemicals and potentially replace harmful chemicals with available alternatives is under attack by the US and big business as “WTO incompatible”.
On development, things do not look much better. 1.1 billion people now live on less than a dollar a day . True, in 2004 Brazil and India were asked to join the “power club” of countries, which fought over deals behind closed doors in Geneva. But the rest of the world is still excluded and the basis for current trade talks is extremely biased in favour of developed countries. Vague promises to end export subsidies are used by rich country governments to extract further concessions on industrial products, services and environmentally sensitive sectors such as forest products and fisheries from developing countries. Key issues, such as cotton, on which the livelihood of millions depends, have been parked in a working group.
The WTO has failed to deliver its declared aim of sustainable development over the last ten years. Trade liberalization has led to more trade, but not to more equitable trade. The WTO now talks about the environment, but it also continues to pose a danger to precaution and environmental rules.
It is time for a new start in the global trade regime. The Millennium Development Summit in New York this September presents world leaders with an opportunity to take a new direction. Governments should agree a global review of the social and environmental impacts of WTO-driven trade liberalization so far. This review should be the basis for a trade system that puts sustainable development and the environment at its heart – not just into its Preamble.
Happy Birthday, WTO. May you never reach adulthood.
Daniel Mittler is Greenpeace International's Trade Policy Advisor, www.greenpeace.org
Daniel Mittler
Homepage:
http://www.greenpeace.org
