WTO NEWS: SPEECHES — DG PASCAL LAMY

30 May 2006

Lamy urges members to support multilateral environmental accords

Director-General Pascal Lamy, in a video conference address to the opening session of the European Commission's Green Week 2006 in Brussels on 30 May 2006, urged WTO members to lend their support to multilateral environmental accords. He added that the Doha Round is “a once in lifetime opportunity” to confirm the need for mutual supportiveness between the WTO and MEAs.

Ladies and gentlemen,

Thank you for having me here. Whereas my comments would have been more appropriate to make in your session on trade and biodiversity tomorrow, I am grateful for your attempts to accommodate my schedule, and to have included me in the opening.

When Rachel Carson — one of the most famous biologists, ecologists and writers of our times — warned us in 1962 that we would begin to face a Silent Spring — one in which no birds would sing because of the effects of our actions on biodiversity, many have tried to heed her warning. Since 1962, we have come a long way in trying to protect our biodiversity. Had Rachel Carson been with us today, she would have probably been pleased to know how far we have come in protecting, in particular, the birds that she had come to care about so much.

Today, there are 117,000 protected areas worldwide, which amount to about 15% of the total surface area of our planet. Furthermore, the trend in creating these areas has been moving steadily upwards. The international community has also put in place a range of different legal instruments to protect our biological heritage. Witness the RAMSAR Convention on Wetlands that was signed in 1971, the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species that was signed in 1972, the Convention on Biological Diversity of 1992, and so on.

But despite these efforts, the earth's biodiversity is still desperately in need of our attention. As I am sure you are aware, the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (the IUCN) has created one of the most authoritative and objective systems worldwide for the classification of bird species by their risk of extinction. Unfortunately, however, the IUCN's Red List Index for Birds continues to tell us that we have a long way to go. The most recent Index points to a deterioration of the overall “threat status” for birds from 1988 to today, across all ecosystems!

Ladies and gentlemen, I would like to seize this opportunity to congratulate the European Commission on the Communication that it adopted on 22 May to halt biodiversity loss by 2010. Our continuous quest for economic growth must certainly not come at the expense of the environment.

As you know, the rules of the multilateral trading system were confronted with biodiversity issues quite early on. The 1991 Tuna/Dolphin dispute — which is probably as enshrined in your memories as it still is in mine — brought the rules of international trade head-to-head with a conservation question. At the time, the multilateral trading system, including the GATT dispute settlement mechanism, were ill-equipped to deal with the issue.

The dispute put both the trade and the environmental community ill at ease as to its consequences. Our awareness of the interlinkage between trade and the environment, at that stage, had not yet matured. In fact, the dispute brought right into the open the tension that exists between the concept of “sovereignty” over natural resources, and efforts to protect these resources across borders. It is undoubted, however, that today our awareness of transboundary and global environmental problems is much greater. It is the link between these transboundary issues and international trade that is, of course, of interest to the WTO. It is this issue, and this link, that we must all monitor closely.

We were lucky when, in 1992, the Rio Earth Summit managed to clarify some issues for us. Principle 12 of the Rio Declaration called on importing countries to avoid taking unilateral environmental action outside their jurisdiction. Instead, it recommended that environmental measures that address transboundary or global environmental problems be based on an “international consensus.” Hence, the importance of multilateral environmental accords (or MEAs, as we call them). Rio's Principle 12 has been referred to repeatedly in the WTO's environmental discussions, particularly by developing countries who have feared that they would be subjected to unilateral determinations by importing countries on what is “good” or “bad” for the environment.

But as we all know of course, finding an international consensus on some of the world's most pressing environmental problems is not a simple task. And, many countries, would like to preserve their margin of manoeuvre to act alone — faster than the international community — in the instances where they perceive an “irreversible” threat to the environment.

The challenge that the WTO faces therefore is twofold: one, is how it should deal with unilateral actions to protect the environment outside a country's jurisdiction; and two, is how it should interface with other legal regimes — such as the MEAs. What guides the WTO in addressing both of these challenges is the Preamble to the WTO Agreement, which makes “sustainable development” the ultimate aim of the WTO. The Preamble guides any environmental dispute that the WTO is asked to resolve. In addition, the WTO does not try to take decisions with environmental consequences on its own. Quite to the contrary, in all the environmental disputes that the WTO has been confronted with to date, outside scientific advice has been sought. The WTO is careful, therefore, not to pass judgement in isolation of expert environmental opinion.

On the first of the challenges that I have just described, the WTO has indeed been confronted with such a situation. The Shrimp/Turtle dispute, I am certain, is familiar to you all. The WTO tread a fine line in this dispute in trying to balance both trade and environmental goals. It delved into the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species to see if there was a requirement within that Convention for “Turtle Excluding Devices” to be used. As you know, the US was requiring the use of these Devices by its trading partners. But the Panel found them nowhere in CITES.

Despite that, and in view of the importance of the world's sea turtles (which are some of the oldest known species on our planet!), the WTO allowed the US to maintain its conservation measures, albeit with revisions. One of the most important recommendations of the WTO in this dispute, was that the parties try to reach a “cooperative” environmental solution. And, in fact, a little-known outcome of this dispute is that it gave birth to a new MEA, entitled: Memorandum of Understanding on the Conservation and Management of Marine Turtles and their Habitats of the Indian Ocean and South-East Asia. Personally, I consider this a major success story. It points to the types of synergies that can exist between different legal regimes, and the very explicit kind of support that one regime can give to the other.

Now, in terms of the WTO's relationship to MEAs — which is the second challenge that I referred to earlier — as you know part of this issue is now under negotiation in the WTO. The ultimate objective of the negotiation is to ensure that trade and environmental regimes become “mutually supportive.“ Some of this mutual supportiveness already takes place, as in the Shrimp/Turtle example that I just gave. But it also takes place because the Appellate Body of the WTO has repeatedly confirmed that WTO rules are not to be interpreted in isolation of other bodies of law. However, it is undoubted that more can be done. In fact, I would like to seize this opportunity to send a message to the membership of the WTO: We all agree that unilateral action, outside a country's jurisdiction, should be avoided. Let us lend our support, therefore, to multilateral environmental accords. The Doha Round, in which this issue is currently under negotiation, is a once in lifetime opportunity to confirm the need for “mutual supportiveness.”

Discussion in the WTO, that is specific to the relationship between the TRIPS Agreement and the Convention on Biological Diversity, is also taking place of course. In fact, I had a very productive meeting with the Executive Secretary of the CBD yesterday, Mr. Ahmed Djoghlaf, on the various interlinkages between the two legal regimes. However, we were both cognizant of the fact that the membership of these regimes is not identical.

The issues of access to genetic resources, of prior informed consent and of benefit sharing are currently being explored in the WTO. They are also being examined in WIPO — another important partner in the intellectual property domain. Our members continue to be divided on how best to address these issues, with some wanting an amendment of the TRIPS agreement, and others saying that there is no tension between the WTO and the CBD warranting such a change. The discussion must still run its course. Whatever its outcome, it is incumbent on all countries to use intellectual property rights in a manner that fosters biodiversity — all countries have a responsibility.

Ladies and gentlemen, allow me, on that note, to conclude by wishing you every success in your deliberations during Green Week. Protecting our biodiversity is an objective that we must all strive towards. Let us heed Rachel Carson's call.