While the Organization of American States is not primarily a trade
organization, its complicit role whether by design or by incompetence in
furthering an environmentally destructive path of trade and investment
liberalization in this hemisphere is undeniable. That the Canadian
Ambassador dismisses those concerned with the environmental content of
trade as the “newest Luddites” speaks volumes of the government’s
failure to listen to Canadians, and to learn the lessons of Seattle at
the WTO, and at Washington with the World Bank.
That the purpose of this OAS meeting is to “set the non-trade
part of the agenda” for next year’s Free Trade Area for the Americans
(FTAA) Summit in Quebec in April, 2001 is clear evidence that the OAS
and the FTAA project continue to deny the connections between trade
liberalization and environmental stress. The environmental degradation
induced or at least aggravated by free trade is not a “non-trade” issue
to be separated out into remote baskets for discussion later on, if at
all. All the evidence points to the direct links with public health
concerns Ð fatal water quality, smog related pre-mature deaths, climate
change and genetically altered foods. At the same time, the public sees
the steady decline of the government’s interest in and capacity to
protect the public interest with strong environment and conservation
measures. There are many examples of negative environmental impacts
related to undisciplined free trade.
The OAS was supposed to play a critical role to ensure a coherent
and complementary approach to economic development, environmental
protection and social justice. The failure of the OAS to fulfil this
role effectively promises to see the failure of all agendas. These are
not merely technical matters as Ambassador Peter Boehm would have us
believe. The Organization of American States (OAS) includes the same 34
member states of the Summit of the Americas, including the NAFTA parties (the 35th OAS member State, Cuba, has been suspended
since 1962). In preparation for a more active OAS, it has been given
new responsibilities to implement Summit of Americans plans of action
around economic integration and trade liberalization, as well as other
agendas including the elimination of poverty and sustainable
development.
Only by dealing with environment, economy and social justice
together can we get to a state of sustainable development. Remaining in
our separate so-called non-trade baskets will only lead to unsustainable
development. The Copenhagen Declaration of the 1996 World Summit for
Social Development acknowledged the aggravation of poverty is due to
unsustainable patterns of consumption and production. This finding is
particularly important when considering the expansion of NAFTA
disciplines south, given the risk of very negative impacts environmental
and social impacts. Indeed, according to the World Bank, while the
southern part of the Americas has the highest per capita income in the
developing world, it has the worst records of income distribution.
Extreme poverty, when combined with inequitable income distribution
policies has often led to political instability. Forcing market
liberalization and privatization has not gone well as the recent Bolivia
water situation illustrates where angry people revolted against the
World Bank’s brokered deal with British Bechtel to privatise water
supplies and delivery.
But instead of being able to report that the OAS is doing great
things to ensure sustainable development in the Americas generally and
the FTAA project in particular, the fact is that the OAS has dropped the
ball. The following review of the Summits will provide the basis for
this sorry conclusion. The OAS and its political leadership must account
for this failure of public policy. The OAS Role in the FTAA Project:
Miami Summit
(Miami, or First) Summit of the Americas took place in Miami,
December 9 to 11, 1994. The meeting produced a Declaration of Principles
and a Plan of Action signed by all 34 Heads of State and Government in
attendance. The Declaration of Principles established a pact for
development and prosperity based on the preservation and strengthening
of the community of democracies of the Americas. The document sought to
expand prosperity through economic integration and free trade; to
eradicate poverty and discrimination in the Hemisphere; and to guarantee
sustainable development while protecting the environment. These new OAS
mandates stem from the first summit in Miami.
One of the most important initiatives to emerge from the Miami
Summit was the agreement to work towards creating a Free Trade Area of
the Americas (“FTAA”). The FTAA was to provide free market access for
goods and services to the entire continent. With a population of 800
million and a GDP of 11 trillion US, the FTAA would be the largest free
trade area in the world. In order to realise this ambitious trade area,
a Tripartite Committee, composed of the Inter-American Development
Bank, the Organization of American States, and the United Nations’
Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean, was created in
order to provide technical support.
Bolivia Summit of the Americas on Sustainable Development: The Non-Summit
Another important initiative from the Miami Summit was the
inclusion of a proposal from the President of Bolivia, Gonz‡lo S‡nchez
de Lozada, to call a specialized Summit on Sustainable Development to be
held in Santa Cruz de la Sierra, Bolivia in 1996. The objectives of the
specialized Summit were to establish a common vision for the future
according to the concepts of sustainable development and to ratify the
principles subscribed to at the 1992 Earth Summit held in Rio de
Janeiro, Brazil. But they forgot to invite civil society and thus the
so-called summit happened with just governments and major CEO’s of TNCs.
It was at that summit where the decision was made to separate out in
two tracks the trade agenda from everything else around sustainable
development.
The OAS was left with no resources and no momentum to monitor the
65 initiatives that came out of the Sustainable Development Summit and
the so-called Santa Cruz Action Plan. Importantly: a Healthy Environment
requires: “Understanding and integrating environmental considerations,
with social and economic” and “ensuring that adverse environmental
effects are identified, prevented, minimised, or mitigated”; Public
Participation requires: “Promoting increased opportunities for the
expression of ideas and the exchange of information and traditional
knowledge on sustainable development between groups, organisations,
businesses, and individuals, including indigenous people”; and
Development and Transfer of Technology requires: ”Developing and
implementing environmentally sound and effective technology”. The OAS
recognised that the success of these initiatives in forests, on energy,
depended also on the government’s willingness to adopt the sustainable
development paradigm as the overall framework for their public policies
in order to ensure effective and coherent integration of social,
economic and environmental goals. But the governments of the Americas
have in fact rejected this concept of development.
The Bolivia Summit created a number of technical and political
institutions. The Unit for Sustainable Development and Environment was
to be the principle arm of the OAS to follow up on Rio 92 mandates and
the mandates given to the OAS from the Bolivia Summit of the Americas.
To achieve this objective, the new political body the OAS Inter-American
Committee on Sustainable Development would exchange the relevant
information and co-ordinate activities with the USD. But rather than the
Unit engaging in a thoughtful Environmental Impact Assessment of the
various trade negotiating committees of the FTAA, the main function
appears to be preparing projects for loan consideration by bilateral and
multilateral agencies such and the Inter-American Development Bank and
the World Bank. We know from Washington last month the horror stories of
Bank development from an environmental perspective.
Instead of consolidating environmental protection and sustainable
development into a coherent whole with economics and trade, the issues
have remained split. It is no surprise, therefore, that all of the
political energy goes to trade liberalization and the environment is
hardly on the map for the OAS in Windsor, or for the Third Summit of the
Americas in Quebec in April 2001. The Bolivia Summit is considered the
failed summit and it was a turning point in the FTAA project to separate
out trade and environment discussions Ð so much for sustainable
development! Second or Santiago Summit in April 1998
The Santiago Summit saw the complete removal of sustainable
development from the goals and agenda of the FTAA project. The result of
these deliberations produced a Declaration and Plan of Action of
Santiago which contained 27 initiatives, grouped into the following
subjects: Education, the principal matter of the Summit, Preserving and
Strengthening Democracy, Justice and Human Rights, Economic Integration
and Free Trade, and Eradication of Poverty and discrimination. But for
now, these social policy issues could wait so as not to overload the
free trade agenda, optimistically expected by a FTAA in 2005.
Nine trade negotiating groups were established and held their
first round, each of which have significant environmental content:
market access, including tariffs, rules of origin, customs and technical
and standards, barriers agriculture, including market access, sanitary
and phytosanitary rules, and other agricultural trade rules, services,
investment, government procurement, subsidies, antidumping and
countervailing duties, competition policy, intellectual property rights,
and dispute settlement. These subject matters and agendas complement
and deepen the economic integration models of NAFTA and the WTO. As in
the case of the WTO, the traders hope to see a number of so-called early
harvest agreements in particular sectors on forestry, on energy, on
fisheries before the hard trade-offs need to be made, if at all. These
early harvest agreements are a disaster for environmental protection and
public oversight. Each trade group has deeply fundamental and more or
less well-identified concerns from an environmental and public interest
perspective. But instead of a coherent plan to avoid or mitigate the
negative impacts, governments give vague assurances that environmental
issues will be dealt with on a case by case basis…so much for Rio!
Environmental Content of Trade
What about the environmental content of trade”? Indeed how can
civil society endorse a quick agreement in forest products, when no work
has been done whatsoever on the Partnership for Biodiversity, promised
at Bolivia? Every single trade group deals with enormous environmental
and social policy content.
Waste Trade
Take the market access group for example. Draft language being
development by the FTAA negotiators since 1998 would create a stream
lined electronic tracking system for customs officials throughout the
Americas to use. The system would apply to so called low value
commodities that are less than $2000 in value. This language could cover
most shipments of hazardous and infectious waste; the value of such is
often low or even negative in value. These fast track approval systems
being put in place risk large quantities of waste being imported into
Canada or other countries in the hemisphere without adequate treatment
facilities or even the knowledge of environment officials, let alone the
general public. There are not even tracking codes for custom officials
to follow. USEPA has asked for exemptions from expedited customs rules
for wastes but so far Commerce has overruled US EPA.
Investment or Pay the Polluters
We know that the NAFTA is as much an investment agreement as it
is a trade liberalization agreement We have the experience under NAFTA
Chapter 11 with investor-state dispute settlement behind closed doors
that assault environmental and public health laws. And despite the
unified voice of Canadians opposed to these investment protection rules
in the absence of investor responsibility, the Canadian government
continues to seek strong investor protection provisions in an FTAA. Yet
when we ask the government to open the door to these disputes, the door
is closed on us Ðthere are no documents, there is no opportunity to know
the positions taken by our government as they purport to defend our
rights to protect the environment, public health and human rights.
Trade in Genetically Engineered Agricultural Products
It is no surprise that the Miami Group, including Canada, the US,
Argentina and Chile hope that the FTAA will provide for better market
access in genetically altered foods and seeds. It was this group that
tried to derail the successful International Biosafety Protocol to the
Biodiversity Agreement established in Montreal last January to restrict
the transboundary movement of GE products. There restrictions based on
serious public health and global environmental concerns are deemed
“technical barriers to trade” to be removed by one of the FTAA
negotiating groups.
Public Participation in Sustainable Development
At the Bolivia Summit governments “strongly supported the full
integration of civil society into the design and implementation of
sustainable development policies and programs at the hemispheric and
national levels”. The primary goal of the strategy for public
participation was to promote transparent, effective, and responsible
public participation in decision-making and in the formulation, adoption
and implementation of policies for sustainable development in Latin
America and the Caribbean. Governments conferred responsibility on the
OAS USD to formulate a strategy for the promotion of public
participation in decision-making for sustainable development.
But by the time of the Santiago Summit in 1998, and instead of
calling for the deepening of wider public participation, transparency
and accountability, the text shouted down to civil society declaring
“The Governments will bear primary responsibility for implementing the
mandates of Summits”. Despite this cold shoulder, civil society meet
anyway in Santiago in a Peoples Summit, with an alternative agenda.
Elizabeth May attended for the Club and meet with environmental activist
from across the hemisphere. We were in Seattle and we’ll be in Quebec
for the Third FTAA Summit.
Third Summit - Quebec, April 2001
The main purpose of this Summit is to approve a list of items for
“early-harvest” agreements in tradable sectors, in counternarcotics
trade, and perhaps even monitoring systems on key goals proclaimed at
Santiago on education and health. Leaders are billed to address common
hemispheric challenges, including economic integration, improved access
to education, poverty alleviation, and enhanced respect for human rights
and democratic development. But not the environment!
Lessons From NAFTA
We know the lessons from NAFTA. Undisciplined trade and
investment liberalization has significant environmental and social
justice impacts. Mexico is an ideal example of this proposition. Though
NAFTA took effect in 1994, trade liberalization in Mexico began long
before that. The transformation has been thorough, and its effects can
now be studied. As a first step in such efforts, recent studies have
indexed pollution intensity in Mexico and the US.
The creation of a Mexico - U.S. pollution intensity index yields
striking results. On average, the 12 largest Mexican industries are 70
times dirtier than their U.S. counterparts. This is largely due to Paper
and Textiles Manufacturing, which are dirtier the same industries in
the U.S. by orders of magnitude. Without these two industries, Mexican
manufactures are 6 times dirtier than the U.S. Perhaps more striking is
the fact that Other Chemicals (pharmaceutics, etc.), Iron and Steel, and
Non-Ferrous Metals are as clean or cleaner than their U.S.
counterparts. Total pollution however, while slowing from 1988 to 1994,
has close to doubled since. This is not explained only in terms of
scale, as economic development proceeds, but also in the composition of
pollution, the pollution haven effect. When comparative advantage is
derived from differences in environmental stringency, then the
composition effect of trade will exacerbate environmental problems.
Not only do we see relatively lax regulations among states; we
also see standards of government enforcement on the decline. Where
resources are cut from environmental testing, and monitoring,
environmental protection and public health suffers declines, as the
recent deaths in Walkerton Ontario from contaminated water supplies can
attest. We know the lessons of free trade in North American, the
inadequacies of the NAFTA Environmental Side Agreement and the lack of a
true civil society dialogue. Lets not repeat and further compound these
errors in the Americas.
Observations on the Canadian Government’s Challenge
The Canadian government responded to the House of Commons Foreign
Affairs Committee report on The FTAA: Towards Hemispheric Agreement in
the Canadian Interest, in March 2000. Recall that the Committee
conducted a national consultation with the public on issues around the
WTO and the FTAA. Many Canadians made submissions, including the Sierra
Club of Canada. Despite the overwhelming public concerns with
globalization and the role that trade and investment agreements play in
the corportization of the planet, the government is forging ahead. And
instead of providing the obviously necessary political leadership for
the FTAA project by integrating environmental protection and
conservation into its trade and investment agenda, as promised at
Bolivia, and at Rio, the Government Response to the House of Commons is
that each FTAA Trade Negotiating Group “should consider relevant trade
and environment issues as they arise”.
Members of the House of Commons Foreign Affairs Committee have
asked the Canadian Minister of International Trade to attend the
Committee on Wednesday June 14th, in Ottawa to discuss the Response. I
suggest we make our presence known at that public hearing, following the
OAS meeting in Windsor next week.
The OAS: Stand Up or Shut Down
A new political body was established at Santiago - The Summit
Implementation Review Group, now Chaired by Canada, to oversee the FTAA
project. This Group is responsible for reporting to the OAS General
Assembly on progress in fulfilling the Summit Plans of Action. All the
evidence points to the removal of strategies for conservation and
environmental protection in the FTAA agenda. Unless the OAS takes its
mandate seriously on sustainable development, environmental protection
and public participation, then it deserves to be placed back on the
shelf of insignificance and to be shut down. |