May 15, 1998
US SIDELINES ENVIRONMENT, SAY US-NGOS
Washington, May 13 (IPS/Danielle Knight) -- US environmental groups, dissatisfied with US trade policies, Wednesday urged US President Bill Clinton to push a green agenda at the next meeting of the World Trade Organisation (WTO).
Angered by an alleged series of broken promises by the administration that the environment would not be sacrificed to trade considerations, the environmental community continued to oppose WTO and US trade policies.
Environmentalists called on the administration to remedy the trade organisation's alleged bias against environmental protection at the WTO Ministerial meeting in Geneva, May 18-20 - marking the 50th anniversary of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT).
"The administration consistently has promised to deliver international agreements that promote a healthy environment and economy," major US environmental groups including the National Wildlife Federation, the Sierra Club and the World Wide Fund for Nature, wrote President Clinton. "It is imperative to honour these commitments, and move forcefully as an advocate of responsible trade rules and environmental policies."
They said a recent WTO dispute settlement panel ruling, against a US ban on imports of shrimp caught in nets without devices that excluded endangered sea turtles, provided further evidence that trade interests continually trumped environmental concerns.
While, US Trade Representative, Charlene Barshefsky strongly denounced the panel ruling, US environmentalists were angry at the failure of the administration to immediately appeal the ruling.
Groups said Washington must reverse its poor environmental record by using the WTO panel decision and the upcoming ministerial meeting to address the longstanding conflict between existing trade rules and the environment.
"The administration consistently has promised that its policy would not only protect, but 'improve' the environment - but it has failed to deliver on that promise," says Daniel Seligman, a trade policy analyst with the Washington-based Sierra Club.
A report released Wednesday by Seligman charged that, under the Clinton administration's trade policies, health and environmental standards were "literally traded away."
Besides the recent Turtle-Shrimp panel result, other environmental regulations have been ruled a "barrier to trade" by the World Trade Organisation - despite Clinton's promises that trade rules would not weaken such laws, according to the Sierra Club's report 'Broken Promises.'
A European Union ban on hormone-treated beef, thought to be a cancer risk, was ruled out of bounds by the WTO in May 1997 after a US challenge. By arguing against Europe's zero-tolerance for hormone treated beef, the US complaint contradicted assurances by then US Trade Representative Mickey Kantor that the food safety rules of the WTO could not be used to lower a country's chosen level of protection, the report said.
US clean gasoline regulations also were weakened by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) after another WTO ruling said the laws discriminated unfairly against gasoline importers.
Even though Kantor had stated "nothing related to this matter will undermine fulfilling the obligations of the US Clean Air Act," the EPA issued new gasoline rules that the agency itself says would increase smog pollution, according to the Sierra report.
Forests also faced increased risk from exotic pests that hitchhike into the country on imported logs because US authorities wrote weak regulations to comply with WTO trade rules, Seligman said. "In 1995, the US Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service cited US international trade obligations as its reason for setting pest control standards that are too weak to protect America's forests."
Such pests caused trillions of dollars in damage to native tree species - virtually wiping out the American chestnut, elm and white pine, according to the report.
State sanctions against countries known for environmental and human rights abuses, such as Nigeria and Burma, have also been challenged by the WTO, the report said. Sanctions against Burma have been challenged by the European Union and Japan. More recently, US state officials pressured the Maryland state legislature into rejecting a Nigeria sanctions bill that was supported by environmental groups, including the Sierra Club.
Environmentalists also said that the Committee on Trade and the Environment of the WTO, set up at Vice President Al Gore's insistence to assure that environment interests were not sidelined, had been ignored by the administration.
"In the two years leading up to the first WTO Ministerial in December 1996, the US did not generate a single pro-environmental proposal," said Brennan Van Dyke, a senior attorney with the Washington-based Center for International Environmental Law.
When the European Union offered proposals on rules to govern the use of trade measures in international environmental agreements, the administration neither supported the European position nor produced one of its own, said the Sierra report.
[Trade observers in Geneva said that both the US and EC have been trying to pursue a very narrow 'environment' agenda at the WTO, in terms of the GATT exception clause, but have been thwarting attempts to address the wider agendas of the CTE, covering all the WTO agreements, including TRIPs, and this has been one reason for the stalemate. Also, the US wants to maintain its unilateral approach, to enable it to take action when it suits its interest, and block when it is not.]
Environmentalists charged the administration with failing to produce strong environmental agreements to balance established trade agreements. The environmental side agreements to the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) lacked teeth and had "failed to deliver on their intended purpose," says the report.
The proposed Multilateral Agreement on Investment (MAI) could stifle environmental protection around the world, the report said. The MAI - as currently written - would allow foreign investors to sue the country for compensation if domestic laws, including environmental regulations, hurt their profits, said critics.
To remedy this trumping of trade over environment, organisations called on the administration to conduct formal environmental impact assessments of proposed trade agreements early in negotiations, and eliminate the special industry advisory committee to the United States Trade Representative.
Groups also wanted Clinton to push for WTO reforms that would give environmental concerns more weight within the trade body.
Recently, to the approval of environmental organisations, Barshefsky, called for such reforms. She proposed the creation of an 'Eminent Persons Group' that would be an independent body of trade and environment experts from developed and developing countries.