Feb 30, 1993

COMPLAINTS OF 'MISINFORMATION' ON ENVIRONMENT

Geneva Feb 5 (Chakravarthi Raghavan) -- Delegations to the General Agreement, and particularly Third World delegations, are becoming concerned with what they see as the campaign against the GATT and multilateral trade rules from some sections of the non- governmental environment groups and the resulting 'misinformation' in the media and the public.

Participants at a two-day meeting of the GATT working group on trade and environment this week said that the issue and the need for a response had figured at the meeting, and that they expect either the Chairman of the GATT Council or the Chairman of the working group to make an official response.

While the publication by the World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF) on the Uruguay Round agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade, which coincided with this week's meeting of the working group apparently triggered a discussion, participants said that there were also deeper concerns because of the public campaigns which remain unanswered.

The WWF report on the technical barriers to trade issue, which appeared to suggest to several of the participants as seeking to enable any trade restrictions so long as the cloak of 'environment protection' being claimed for it or making such restrictions and claims non-justiciable under GATT dispute settlement was seen as either based on ignorance or an attempt at misinformation, and needing response from the GATT.

As one participant put it, the failure to address these questions is resulting in the public being misinformed and is enabling protectionist lobbies of the North cloaking themselves in environmental garbs and getting public support to persuade their governments to restrict trade and imports from competitive sources.

Some governments in the North, some Third World participants noted, unable or unwilling to meet their financial, technological and other commitments and costs of helping the developing countries to adopt sustainable development policies and strategies, are finding an easy way out to satisfy their environment lobbies by unilateral actions targeting Third World trade.

And some environment groups of the North, unable to change or campaign against the overall policies of their countries or persuade their own consumers and public to change their lifestyles and ways of life, are finding easier targets in efforts to 'conserve' Third World resources for the North, other delegations complained.

Some of them note that even in their own countries there is not enough interaction between trade, environment and other economic ministries and divisions of government to adopt a cohesive policy in all fora and before all pressure groups.

Japan's Amb. Hideotoshi Ukawa who chairs the working group on trade and environment is expected to hold consultations both with key delegations as well as with the GATT Council Chairman and the GATT Director-General on how to respond and refute what is seen as attempts of some NGOs to blame the GATT and its trade rules for environment problems or the encouragement by these groups to unilateral actions by the powerful against the developing countries and their trade.

The working group addressed at its meeting item one on its agenda, namely the scrutiny of multilateral environment agreements with trade provisions and their compatibility with the GATT rules.

At its next meeting the working group is to take up consideration and discussion labelling and packaging requirements in countries on environment grounds and their effects on trade as well as questions relating to transparency of multilateral environmental regulations and trade regulations.

In the discussions on multilateral environment agreements with trade provisions, much of the discussion would appear to have centred on a presentation by the European Community which had suggested an authoritative interpretation by the GATT CONTRACTING PARTIES of Art XX (General Exceptions) of the General Agreement, and particularly XX (b) to make clear that it covers environment.

Under XX (b), nothing in the General Agreement is to be construed as preventing a contracting party from adopting or enforcing measures necessary to protect human, animal or plant life or health. This is however subject to that the measure is not a means of arbitrary or unjustifiable discrimination between countries where the same conditions prevail or a disguised restriction on international trade.

The European Community had suggested an authoritative interpretation to enable environmental actions to be covered by the exception clause, but provided it is not taken unilaterally but under multilateral agreements open to all GATT contracting parties and is under the aegis of the United Nations.

In the discussions however several countries led by India noted that there was no agreed definition of a 'multilateral' treaty or agreement and it could range from an agreement among more than two countries to treaties negotiated at a diplomatic negotiating conferences under UN aegis and open to all participants and subject to the normal safeguards of such treaties and conventions.

Any authoritative interpretation on extending Art XX (b) exception to environmental measures should be hence be subject to some other general criteria than mere 'multilateral' treaties. Any such treaty, India suggested, should have an adequate 'geographical spread' in its membership and with having countries at various levels of development and deal with global environment issues and concerns.

Where there are such conventions, such as the Montreal protocol on protection of the ozone layer, and there are one or two holdouts who disregard the environmental protection concerns and provisions, use of trade measures could be considered and justified and covered by a GATT exception. 

But to do so for a "multilateral" treaty that might have three or four regional adherents or only the industrialized countries would enable disguised protectionist measures being put in place, several of the developing countries reportedly said.

Several of them,, as also Canada and a few other industrialized countries, reportedly said that it was too early to talk of agreed interpretations of Art XX and further study and

consideration of all the issues and need for safeguards against abuse would be needed. Brazil, while endorsing this view, would appear to have suggested that the results of the Rio Declaration (of UNCED) and Chapter II of the Agenda 21 action plan should be incorporated into GATT law.

Participants said that while there had been some in-depth discussions, the United States itself did not participate with some detailed views or comments.

The US, in this as in other areas of trade, they said, appears intent on preserving its ability to act unilaterally. Some of the EC statements at the meeting, while opposing unilateralism, appeared to some delegations to keep this option open by talking sometimes of unilateral actions under "some circumstances", but not clearly specifying the circumstances.