|
Industry & Farm Organization Letter to Ambassador Barshefsky
Regarding the WTO's High-Level Symposium on Trade & Environment
Via Telefax: 202-395-3911
April 14, 1999
The Honorable Charlene Barshefsky
United States Trade Representative
600 17th
Street, N.W.
Washington, DC 20508-4801
Dear Madam Ambassador:
The United States Council for International Business (USCIB) and a number of the other under-signed organizations were pleased to attend the recent World Trade Organization’s (WTO) High-Level Symposium on Trade and Environment. Governments, business, and non-governmental organizations that participated had a useful exchange of views on a wide range of issues relating to the interface between environment and trade issues and policies.
While we found the Symposium worthwhile, we were concerned by the U.S. Government (USG) delegation’s statements on the Precautionary Principle and non-product related Processing and Production Methods (PPM’s). First of all, both in the March 15-16 Statement (attached) and in other discussions, the USG seemed to endorse a broader application of the Precautionary Principle, even if the Principle itself was not always explicitly mentioned. Secondly, USG statements also appeared to signal a blanket acceptance of the use of non-product related PPM’s in environmental labels in a way that would set the stage for trade discrimination. In our view, these statements raise considerable doubt about the consistency of U.S. trade policy, especially in light of the government’s strong stance in the beef hormone case and in other current trade disputes and international negotiations. Let us address these two issues in greater detail.
Precautionary Principle
We recognize that uncertainty and risk are inherent in policymaking, and we support cooperative international efforts involving both the public and private sectors to develop scientific data that would improve the accuracy and relevance of risk assessments and harmonize methodology and quality assurance. We believe the USG should reject any interpretation of the Precautionary Principle that does not rely on a risk-based, science-justified approach in the WTO and in specific agreements and forums such as the Sanitary and Phyto-Sanitary (SPS) Agreement and the Codex Alimentarius. We are concerned that the U.S. government’s characterization of the Precautionary Principle at the High-Level Symposium would seemingly undermine the fundamental importance of sound science as a basis for environment and other regulation.
As you well know, U.S. trade has suffered substantially from trade restrictive measures by other countries which have based their actions on unacceptable interpretations of the Precautionary Principle, as Europe has done in the beef hormone case. Similar challenges face U.S. business in trade of biotechnology products with Europe, in the Biosafety Protocol negotiations, and in European environmental labeling programs. These examples demonstrate all too clearly how interpretations of the Precautionary Principle which neglect scientific considerations can prevent legitimate trade in products whose risks can be identified and managed.
PPM’s and Environmental Labeling
The 1995 Report on Trade and Environment to the OECD Council at Ministerial Level made several important points relating to PPM’s, which we believe are still appropriate. That report stated explicitly that:
“When PPM’s affect the characteristics of products, existing trade rules clearly permit the use of PPM-based trade measures, subject to agreed disciplines. However, multilateral trade rules and disciplines make no provision for, and have been interpreted not to allow for, import restrictions based on characteristics which are not physically embodied in the imported products and therefore do not impact on the environment in the importing country.”
The report had two specific findings or recommendations with respect to PPM’s:
· OECD Governments agree that environmental concerns related to PPMs that have transboundary or global environmental effects are best addressed through international cooperation.
· A further examination of the appropriate and effective role of PPM-based trade restrictions in MEAs is necessary.
Given that no such study has taken place and no international consensus exists on the proper role of non-product related PPM’s within the international trading system, any USG position which condones their use outside of MEAs founded on established trade disciplines, as implied by USG statements at the High-Level Symposium, would be premature and create a dangerous precedent.
Regarding environmental labeling, we believe that such labels can provide factual information which enables consumers to make informed purchasing decisions. Regrettably, most environmental labeling programs take the form of multi-criteria labels, developed and awarded through a non-scientific, largely political process. In the absence of an accepted scientific methodology that can fairly distinguish and justify the overall environmental preferability of individual products within entire categories, such labels have questionable environmental benefits. While voluntary, they can still create unfair competitive advantage and pose discriminatory trade barriers, especially when the labels’ criteria are based upon PPM’s. Therefore, we believe that the Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT) should emphasize sound science and transparency and discourage non-product related PPM’s as a component of environmental labeling. These recommendations also pertain to any consideration of labeling for products derived from biotechnology.
In conclusion, we believe the USG should advocate and pursue sound-science based multilateral responses to international environmental challenges, including PPM’s, without restricting trade. The USG views expressed at the Symposium appear to represent a major shift in U.S. policy away from these important principles. We would appreciate confirmation that the U.S. government’s statements should not be read to detract from our strong support for the trading system and strict adherence to the principles of the WTO.
Sincerely,
The American Forest and Paper Association
The Biotechnology Industry Organization
The Chemical Manufacturers Association
Grocery Manufacturers of America
The National Association of Manufacturers
The National Fisheries Institute
The National Foreign Trade Council
The National Mining Association
The United States Council for International Business
Enc.
CC: Madeleine K. Albright, Secretary of State
William M. Daley, Secretary of Commerce
Daniel R. Glickman, Secretary of Agriculture
Carol M. Browner, Administrator, Environmental Protection Agency
|
