*{ http://www.foe.org/international/qatar.html
19 juillet 2002

For more information:

David Waskow
(202) 783-7400 Ext. 108

}


 *partie=titre ANALYSIS OF THE OUTCOME OF WORLD TRADE ORGANIZATION TALKS IN DOHA, QATAR *partie=nil 

The WTO agreement reached in Doha, Qatar, fell short of the ambitious new round of comprehensive negotiations that some countries had sought. But the plan to work toward starting negotiation of new issues, particularly investment rules, threatens environmental laws and regulations. Meanwhile, the Doha agreement did nothing to address the impact of WTO rules on domestic environmental laws and regulations. While gains have been made in the area of fisheries subsidies, the limited attention given to the environment in such areas as Multilateral Environmental Agreements and environmental goods and services could actually lead to more harmful than helpful outcomes. WTO negotiators failed to ensure that trade deals do not undermine environmental concerns and, in the end, the environment lost much more than it gained in Doha.

Investment. While the WTO failed to begin immediate negotiations on a multilateral agreement on investment, the decision to establish a working group to prepare for investment negotiations starting in 2003 threatens environmental laws and regulations. Environmental groups have been sharply critical of the investment provisions in NAFTA Chapter 11 that have been used to challenge environmental protections that interfere with foreign investors' business interests. The Doha agreement clearly opens the door for the WTO to adopt similar investment rules. However, the text also requires that there be an explicit consensus on the "modalities" for negotiations before they can actually start in 2003. 

Multilateral Environmental Agreements (MEAs). While it was a notable and important political step that the WTO agreed to address its relationship to MEAs, the Doha agreement leaves unclear what the outcome of such discussions will be. Negotiations could could lead to WTO rules that inappropriately assume some jurisdiction over environmental agreements, which environmental groups believe should remain an independent and equal set of international institutions that do not face WTO interference. Significantly, the Doha agreement to negotiate about MEAs only applies to circumstances in which both countries involved in a dispute belong to the MEA in question. Especially in such situations, environmental groups believe that any trade measures under the MEA (such as restrictions on trade in endangered species) should not be subject to WTO scrutiny. These negotiations would be beneficial only if they provide a complete and unambiguous exemption for MEAs. 

"Environmental" Goods and Services. The agreement to negotiate on environmental goods and services is likely to be more harmful than helpful because of the WTO's definition of the term "environmental." Under WTO rules, environmental goods and services primarily refers to waste disposal, including landfills and incinerators, and not to preventive environmental technologies. The removal of restrictions on these waste disposal activities is certainly not directly relevant to improving environmental protection and could actually lead to an increase in harmful activities. In addition, the WTO plans to include water collection and distribution, possibly including extraction from aquifers and lakes, under environmental services. 

Services. The decision to accelerate negotiations in services - including environmentally-sensitive sectors such as energy (including fossil fuel production), water resources, transport, waste disposal, and tourism - could lead to significant environmental impacts. For instance, a services agreements could restrict governments' ability to limit the amount of oil drilling, water extraction from natural sources, landfills, and big-box retail development. 

Fisheries Subsidies. The agreement to negotiate reductions in fisheries subsidies, which often lead to overfishing and depletion of fish stocks, will be beneficial for the environment. 

Agricultural Subsidies. The agreement to seek reductions in agricultural export subsidies, aimed at phasing them out, and to substatially reduce trade-distorting agricultural domestic support will generally be beneficial for the environment. However, it will be up to negotiations to determine whether conservation or environmental subsidies in agriculture will be protected. 

Eco-labelling. It is unclear what the result will be of the agreement's instruction to the WTO Committee on Trade and Environment (CTE) to study "labelling requirements" for environmental purposes. The CTE has been mainly a talk-shop that has produced little in the way of results.