Summary: Joint Session between Working Group on Environment, Trade and Sustainable Development and Working Group on Human Development

Impact of international trade on sustainable development and inclusion of the environment in trade policy

The participants, chaired by Mr. Cameron, set out the issues for a critical assessment of the policies and achievements of international agreements on sustainable development related to trade. The outlook was bleak, with predictions for the results of Johannesburg 2002 forecasting little progress at best. Time constraints only permitted discussion in the most general terms, with few concrete examples, and the debate was somewhat hampered by its focus on the rather general 'north south divide' between developed and 'developing' countries. It nevertheless grappled with real issues and presented solutions that were plausible, though old and long ignored by the great and the good.

Ms. Elizabeth Türk of the Centre for International Environmental Law (CIEL) introduced the issues surrounding the regulations of the WTO with a clear and structured presentation, which formed a useful foundation for the rest of the afternoon's discussion. She described the problematic relationship between the three central aspects of sustainable development (economic, environmental and human), and the three pillars of the WTO (trading in goods, protection of intellectual property, trading services). The twin regulatory and practical impacts of the WTO, whereby a set of international rules restrains certain domestic regulatory mechanisms in order to increase and liberalise trade were evaluated in terms of this relationship. She stressed that in some cases regulation is necessary in the interest of the environment, and restraints may need to be put on imports such as asbestos. Southern countries' limited access to intellectual property hinders their sustainable development. This constitutes a fundamental conflict between the TRIPS agreement an the Convention on Biodiversity (CBD). Flanking policies are needed for a sustainable market based development of trade in services.

Ms. Cecilia Oh of the Third World Network described the tension between sustainable development and 'free trade' since the Earth Summit in Rio, 1992. This provided a blueprint for sustainable development in the form of 'Agenda 21', but since it was drawn up the paradigm of free trade has become dominant. The WTO has been instrumental in promoting this paradigm shift and putting it into practice, claiming that free trade can solve all other problems. However, no country can fully control its exports, particularly because of the protectionist policies of the most developed countries, which means that developing countries suffer deeply from the consequences of the dramatic drops in primary export prices in recent years. Transnational companies in particular need to be regulated more.

Finally, José Maria Cabeiro of the Spanish World Rural Forum, focussed on the relationship between globalisation and world poverty in rural areas. Over half of the world's population lives in rural areas, and internal and external migration represent the loss of biodiversity and cultural diversity. Globalisation contributes to this, driving rural dwellers to the city. Civil society needs to 'light a candle,' Mr. Cabeiro said, in order to lead the way for new policies to address the human and environmental elements af globalisation.

Interesting questions
Perhaps the most important and relevant question asked was, "What would be acceptable to civil society as a minimum achievement of the forthcoming WSSD (World Summit on Sustainable Development) in Johannesburg?"

René Vossnaar, of the UNCTAD, answered that the developed countries would be very reluctant to go beyond what was agreed in Dohar and Monterrey. Civil Society's task would be to push forward concrete targets for the future. (The draft agreement for Johannesburg is already available on the website.)

Conclusions
Ms. Türk concluded that the WTO needs input from civil society groups to assess the human and environmental impact of its policies and agreements such as the GATS. Ms. Oh showed that while trade may be the most powerful engine for development, as the Monterrey Consensus declared, unfair competition prevents it from fulfilling that function. The overwhelming consensus for the first part of the session was that environmental and human issues should be pushed as firmly as possible, and developing countries should have more autonomy for their policies for sustainable development. No surprise there then.

Click here for all available presenters' documents
Click here for all available summaries

Please read about the summaries