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.
SEE ALSO:
>
press releases
> WTO news archives
> Pascal
Lamy's speeches
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.