Changing the Balance of Trade
[pic] [pic] [pic]
Changing the Balance of Trade
A Seminar on Sustainability Assessments
of EU Trade Policy,
brussels, 9-10 July 2002
Seminar Proceedings
Table of Contents
PART A – Introduction and Summary 1
1. Introduction – Why a seminar on SIA? 1
2. Summary – Main messages and results 2
PART B – The Seminar 5
3. The Agenda 5
4. Participants' List 8
5. Summary of Presentations 12
PART C – RESOURCES AND DOCUMENTATION 23
6. Presentations of Invited Speakers 23
7. Joint NGO Statement on Sustainability Impact Assessments of EU Trade Policy 44
8. Internet Resources 49
PART A – Introduction and Summary
Introduction – Why a seminar on SIA?
In the spring of 2000 the World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF) and Fundacion Futuro Latinoamericano organised a workshop in Quito, Ecuador to discuss an emerging new policy tool: Sustainability Impact Assessment (SIA). The meeting gathered about 100 representatives of governments, intergovernmental bodies and NGOs to discuss the purpose, utility and policy relevance of SIAs. For decades, trade agreements have been negotiated in the dark – from a sustainable development viewpoint – with little or no analysis of their environmental, social or developmental impacts. This new tool presents an opportunity to address this weakness and a means to fill the sustainability information void in trade policy-making.
Today, SIAs and/or environmental assessment are increasingly being used by trade policy-makers to help deliver more sustainable trade policies. The mandate for the new round of negotiations agreed at Doha in 2001 contains references to environmental assessments.[1] The European Union has committed itself to conducting SIAs of all of its major trade policies and agreements, and of the current WTO negotiations.
Over the next three years, the European Commission’s Directorate General for Trade (DG Trade) will spend 10% of its budget on SIAs. It has developed a standardised methodology and the first pilot study –on the food crops sector – was completed in early 2002.[2] SIAs of Europe’s trade agreements with Mercosur countries, African Caribbean and Pacific nations, and the Gulf States are being developed, and a number of sectoral studies of the WTO negotiations are also underway. SIA is obviously a central plank of EU efforts to make its trade more sustainable, but are they making any difference?
On 9th and 10th July 2002 over 130 delegates gathered in the European Parliament in Brussels at a seminar to debate the role of Sustainability Impact Assessments in EU trade policy. The seminar was organised by WWF, the Heinrich Böll Foundation and Caroline Lucas MEP.
The aim of the seminar was to examine the current use of SIA by the EU and explore how the tool is being used to inform trade policy. In doing so, the seminar was to update delegates on the practical experience of conducting SIAs, and move the process forward by examining how to make SIAs more relevant to policy makers and exploring how to integrate them into trade policy. There were two broad objectives of the seminar:
• Awareness: The first objective was to increase awareness of SIA among the NGO community, the business sector, EU Member States, Parliamentarians, developing countries and other stakeholders.
• Policy: A second objective was to assess the policy relevance and effectiveness of SA within the EU and to identify mechanisms to further integrate SA into EU policy-making processes.
The seminar was divided into two distinct sessions reflecting these two objectives. The first session provided an update of how methodologies have developed and an insight into the practicalities of conducting an SIA. The second session focussed on the policy relevance of the EU’s programme of SIAs and explored issues such as the role of SIAs in the negotiating process, how to involve stakeholders and how to ensure that SIAs influence trade policy.
As well as presentations from DG Trade itself, delegates heard the views of DG Environment, the European Parliament, academia, non-governmental organisations, business, EU trading partners, and the World Trade Organization.
Summary – Main messages and results
The seminar offered a unique opportunity for a frank and open exchange of views and for discussion. Those attending included government officials from EU Member States and trading partners, Commission officials, politicians, academics, NGOs, and journalists from four continents and over 30 countries.
This summary does not constitute a consensus document and may not reflect the views and positions of all those who participated, but it does give a flavour of the debate and highlights the key issues raised during the seminar.
• Awareness: SIA is a new tool and despite the recent flurry of interest in it, the seminar revealed that the level of awareness of SIA is still very low among policy-makers and stakeholders alike. Developing countries and EU trading partners in particular were poorly informed about the tool and were unclear about its conduct and role in policy-making.
Delegates from non-EU states were unaware of the EU SIA programme and of the commitment to conduct SIAs for all major trade agreements. Many expressed the view that the Commission should do more to inform its trading partners of the SIA programme.
• The role of SIA: There was general agreement that SIAs are potentially important tools to help decision-makers, but some delegates expressed a concern that they might end up setting policy rather than informing policy. The point was made that SIA findings should not be binding and that ultimately policy-makers make the decisions – SIAs merely aid them in this process. However, a counterpoint was made that policy-makers should take the results of SIAs seriously and must use them if they are to remain credible.
• Trust and transparency: Many delegates remained to be convinced of the value of SIAs. Some questioned the EU’s motivation in conducting SIAs and saw the move as a cynical attempt to justify protectionist measures under the mantle of sustainable development. This echoes the conclusions of the Quito meeting in 2000 where building trust was seen as fundamental to the success of SIAs.[3]
The Commission has a lot of work to do to convince its trading partners and other stakeholders that it is honest in its motivation to conduct SIAs. Increased transparency and an inclusive approach were perceived as essential. The EU trade policy-making process was criticised as being opaque and it is difficult to see how SIAs are influencing negotiations. Prior to the seminar 21 NGOs signed a joint statement calling on the EC to open up and be more transparent and inclusive in formulating trade policy – see part C.
• Stakeholders: The role of stakeholders in the process was also widely debated. It was generally agreed that involvement of stakeholders is valuable in increasing transparency of the process, but there were complaints that, under the current EC approach, the opportunities for stakeholder involvement are limited.
The lack of involvement of the EU’s trading partners in the process was singled out for particular criticism. SIAs should be made available to trading partners so that they can use the results themselves.
Stakeholders were also identified as a valuable source of information and thus their full involvement from an early stage should result in a more robust study. Conversely, the exclusion of stakeholders makes it particularly difficult to assess the impacts of trade policies at a local level. The involvement of local stakeholders is likely to increase the effectiveness and applicability of the resulting policy measures.
The involvement of stakeholders also presents an opportunity for the voices of vulnerable and marginal groups of society to be heard and expose distributional effects of policies which normally remain hidden. However, some delegates complained that the EC SIAs conducted to date have failed in this respect and in particular have neglected gender issues.
• Capacity building: SIAs can be highly complex and specialised pieces of work requiring high levels of technical expertise. The view was expressed that many countries – especially those in the south – will not have the capacity to conduct their own studies. However, some delegates voiced the opposite viewpoint and pointed out that a wealth of technical expertise resides in developing countries. In this respect, four case studies presented on day 1 were conducted by experts in their own countries.
Stakeholder involvement is an effective means of building capacity and raising awareness of the tool. Unfortunately, the technical and resource intensive nature of SIAs means that the capacity of civil society to engage fully in the process is limited. Efforts should be made to increase capacity in civil society to take part in the process. Partnerships with International organisations such as UNEP were suggested as a means to increase capacity.
• Timing: There was agreement that SIAs should begin at an early stage in order to inform negotiating positions. SIAs conducted at a late stage can only hope to have a limited effect on trade policy and their scope will tend to be restricted to identifying mitigation and enhancement measures..
• Policy infrastructure: SIAs should be fully integrated into the policy-making process, and governments should develop appropriate systems and infrastructure to facilitate this. There must be high-level commitment to, and involvement in, the SIA process. Unless senior personnel are committed to the process, SIA will remain at the periphery of policy-making and rarely go beyond the officials managing the consultants who conduct the research.
SIAs present an opportunity to join-up policies. It is a cross-cutting tool which has the potential to highlight policy conflicts and synergies. It should be used to promote the overall coherence of the EU’s external objectives in the fields of trade, poverty alleviation, human rights and environmental protection.
Good inter-service co-operation is critical for the effective delivery of mitigation and enhancement measures will require a close degree of co-operation between different ministries, and DGs. Those involved in the ‘on-the-ground’ delivery of policies should be closely involved in the SIA process from setting the terms of reference through to the formulation of mitigation and enhancement measures.
• SIAs must be seen to be making a difference: Another concern was that there is little evidence that SIAs being conducted by the Commission are influencing EU negotiating positions at the WTO or in bilateral agreements. There is a real risk that stakeholders will cease to engage in the process if they are not convinced SIAs will lead to trade-related policies and measures that mitigate the negative impacts of trade liberalisation, and ensure a more equitable and sustainable distribution of its positive. It is essential for the credibility of the tool that SIAs make a difference to trade policy and crucially are seen to be making a difference.
PART B – The Seminar
The Agenda
Changing the Balance of Trade
A Seminar on Sustainability Assessments of EU Trade Policy
European Parliament
Eastman Building, Rue Belliard 135
Brussels
Tuesday 9th July – Sustainability Assessments in Practice
9:30 Registration
10:00 Session 1 – Sustainability Assessments in EU Policy-Making
Chair: Tony Long, WWF
The session will frame the debate in the light of the conclusions of the Gothenburg Summit which require all major EU policies to be subject to a sustainability assessment. It will explore what this commitment means for EU policy-making and how they expect SAs to contribute to more sustainable policies.
• David Wilkinson, Institute for European Environmental Policy
• Margot Wallström, Environment Commissioner
• Enrique Barón Crespo MEP, President of the PES Group in the European Parliament
11:30 Press Conference with Margot Wallström, Enrique Barón Crespo MEP,
and Tony Long, WWF
Coffee Break
12:00 Session 2 – Practical Application of Sustainability Assessments to Trade
Chair: Juan-Rodrigo Walsh, FARN
This session will examine how Sustainability Assessments (SA) are being used today. It will feature a series of case studies illustrating different aspects of the use of SA. They will highlight experience in specific sectors, commodities, and regions.
• Karim Dahou, Coordinator of Enda Prospectives-Policies Dialogues: EU Senegal fishing agreements
• Hanan Awwad, Friends of the Earth Middle East, Jordan: Environmental implications of the Mediterranean Free Trade Zone
13:30 Lunch
14:30 Session 3 – Practical Application of Sustainability Assessments to Trade (cont.)
• Alvaro Luchiezi, WWF Brazil: Sustainability Assessment of the Brazilian soy sector
• Karin Ulmer, APRODEV: Sustainability assessment and Millennium Development Goals - an ACP case study
15:30 Coffee Break
15:50 Session 4 – Advances in the methodology for Sustainability Assessments
Chair: Keith Tyrell, WWF
• Prof. Colin Kirkpatrick, University of Manchester IDPM: Update of the EU methodology being developed by Manchester University and proposed for the assessment of the new round of negotiations agreed at Doha
• Aaron Maltais, Stockholm Environment Institute (SEI): Sustainability Impact Assessment of WTO negotiations in the major food crops sector
16:50 Discussion
Wednesday 10th July - High Level Discussion on Sustainability Assessments in the EU
9:00 Summary of day 1
9:15 Session 1 – Stakeholder perspectives on Sustainability Assessment of Trade
Policies and Agreements
Chair: Keith Tyrell, WWF
This session will examine different stakeholders expectations of SA. It will discuss the problems of addressing the social, economic and environmental pillars of sustainability in one tool and explore how to improve the approach.
• Silke Steinhilber, Network Women in Development Europe (WIDE)
The gender perspective
• Claude Fussler, World Business Council for Sustainable Development:
The business perspective
• Marie-Cecile Thirion, SOLAGRAL: The development perspective
• Reinhard Quick, UNICE: The European business perspective
11:00 Coffee Break
11:20 Session 2 – Sustainability Assessment as a tool in international trade negotiations
Chair: Caroline Lucas, MEP
How can we ensure that SAs are relevant to policy-makers? What are the mechanisms for integrating SAs into the policy-making process? This session will focus on the role of SAs in trade negotiations and will explore how to ensure that the output is relevant and how to integrate it into the policy-making process.
• Robert Madelin, Director DG Trade
• Gillian Guthrie, Director, Environmental Protection & Conservation, Ministry of Land and Environment, Jamaica
• Bernard Kuiten, Counsellor External Relations, World Trade Organization (WTO)
13:00 Lunch
14:30 Session 3 – Delivering sustainable trade: SA in EU trade policy
Chair: Tony Long, WWF
This session will explore the role of SAs in informing EU trade policy and will discuss how to ensure that SAs influence the negotiating processes.
• Pierre Defraigne, Head of Cabinet of Trade Commissioner Pascal Lamy
• H.E. Jose Alfredo Graça Lima, Ambassador, Brazilian Mission to the EU
• Caroline Lucas, MEP
• Mikel Insausti, WWF European Policy Office
15:50 Coffee Break
16:10 Discussion and seminar conclusions
17:00 Close
Participants' List
|Title |Name |Surname |Position |Organisation |
|Mr |Tomas |Abadia Vicente |Desk Officer Mercosur |European Commission |
|Ms |Maria |Antalino Uriarte |Executive Director |RMALC |
|Mr |Henning |Arp |Cabinet of Margot Wallstrom |DG Environment |
|Mrs |Hanan |Awwad |Project Manager |FoE Middle East |
|Mr |Enrique |Baron Crespo |MEP |European Parliament |
|Ms |Orsolya |Barsi |Student |Central European University Department |
|Ms |Sandrine |Basques |Policy Officer |Eurostep |
|Mr |Manuel |Beguier |Policy Officer |Ministry of Ecology and Sustainable |
| | | | |Development |
|Ms |Karin |Bengtson | |AEC |
|Mr |Emannuel.K |Bensah |Intern/Webmaster |ICDA |
|Ms |Eleonor |Boiscuvier |Economist |Planistat |
|Mr |Peter J. |Boldt |Senior Economist |SAK |
|Ms |Aurélie |Boone |Etudiante / Stagiaire |Ministry of Sustainable Development |
|Ms |Katarina |Borgh-Rahm | |West Zealand |
|Mr |Nicolas |Boudeville |Director Sustainable Advisory |Price Waterhouse Coopers |
| | | |Senior | |
|Mr |Nicolas |Brahy | |Louvain |
|Ms |Louislen |Christians | |Louvain |
|Ms |Clare |Coffey |Policy Analyst |IEEP |
|Mr |Tom |Crompton |Policy Officer |WWF-UK |
|Mr |Karim |Dahou |Co-ordinator |ENDA Senegal |
|Mr |Salvatore |D'Angelo |Consultant |Ministry of Environment and Land |
| | | | |Protection |
|Ms |Ana Isabel |De la Goublaye |Second Secretary |Embassy of Bolivia |
|Ms |Nathalie |De Villier |Student | |
|Mr |Pierre |Defraigne |Chef de Cabinet |DG Trade |
|Ms |Eva |Dessewffy | |Austrian Chamber of Commerce |
|Mr |W.H. |Diemont |Senior Researcher |Alterra |
|Mr |Neil |Dourmashkin |Senior Economist |Acacia Consulting |
|Mr |Alan |Dreanic | |FIDH |
|Ms |Sihle |Dube |Project Officer |NIZA |
|Mr |Jean-Louis |Duhaut |Counsellor |Ministère des Affaires Economiques |
|Ms |Lucia |Espinosa |Commercial Attachée |Embassy of Equador |
|Mr |Silvia |Facchinello |Advisor |Eurochambres |
|Mr |Dennis |Fenton |Consultant | |
|Mr |Diego |Fernandez De Velasco |Senior Consultant |Price WaterHouse Coopers |
|Dr |Lucy |Ford | |European Parliament |
|Ms |Héléne |Frances |Sustainable Development Officer |Ministry of Sustainable Development |
|Ms |Noriko |Fujiwara |Researcher |CEPS |
|Mr |Claude |Fussler |Director |WBCSD |
|Mr |Julio |Garcia Burgues |Head of Unit |European Commission |
|Mr |Ortrun |Gauperr | |Mitbestimmung |
|Ms |Sylvia |Gillion |Communication Officer |IUCN - Regional Office for Europe |
|Ms |Ellen |Godec | |EBCD |
|Ms |Aurelie |Godefroy | |Euralia |
|H.E.Mr |José Alfredo |Graça Lima |Ambassador of Brazil | |
|Ms |Mangara |Graca-Odeniz | |Notimex |
|Ms |Laurence |Graff | |European Commission |
|Mr |Cédric |Grolleau |Consultant |EURALIA |
|Mr |Georges |Guignobel | |Environment France |
|Ms |Gillian |Guthrie |Director |Ministry of Land and Environment, Jamaica|
|Mr |Svein-Erik |Haarklau |Policy Officer |WWF-Norway |
|Mr |Peter |Hardstaff |Head of Campaigns |World Development Movement |
|Mr |Mark |Hayden |Economist |European Commission |
|Ms |Angelina |Hermanns |Press Officer |WWF-EPO |
|Mr |Stefaan |Hermans |DG Empl. |European Commission |
|Ms |Benedicte |Hermelin |Policy Officer |Solagral |
|Ms |Gwen |Hines | |DG Development |
|Mr |Alice |Hodgson |Streering Group Member |WIDE (Women in Development Europe) |
|Mr |Chiel |Hussman | |Environment Netherlands |
|Mr |Mikel |Insausti |Policy Officer |WWF-EPO |
|Ms |Monika |Jakse |First Secretary |Mission of Slovenia to the EU |
|Ms |Patricia |Jimenez |Dialogue Programme Director |Heinrich Böll Fondation |
|Ms |Carolina |Jimenez | | |
|Mr |Tembo |Kalemezi |Counsellor |Embassy of Uganda |
|Mr |Paul |Kaye |Journalist |ENDS Environment Daily |
|Mr |Maurice |Kennedy |Trade Counsellor |Irish Permanent Representation |
|Mr |Ilkhom |Khayadarov |Economic Secretary |Uzbekistan Mission to the EU |
|Mr |Johannes |Kind |Administrator |European Economic and Social Committee |
|Mr |Colin |Kirkpatrick |Professor |University of Manchester |
|Ms |Kannikar |Kiytwatchakul | |Project for Ecological Recovery |
|Mr |Andreas |Kraemer |Director |Ecologic |
|Ms |Marie |Kranendank |Presidente |Women in Europe for a Common Future |
|Mr |Jochen |Krimphoff |Manager |Price Waterhouse Coopers |
|Mr |Bernard |Kuiten |Counsellor |WTO |
|Ms |Analie |Langworst | |Acoris |
|Mr |Hervé |Lefeuvre |Policy Officer |WWF-EPO |
|Ms |María |Leichner |Executive Director |ECOS |
|Mr |Stephan |Leiner |Counsellor |DG Environment |
|Mr |Xie |Li |Commercial Secretary |Chinese Mission to the EU |
|Mr |Tony |Long |Director |WWF-EPO |
|Mr |Marco |Loprieno |Principal Administrator |DG Development |
|Ms |Caroline |Lucas |MEP |European Parliament |
|Mr |Alvaro |Luchiezi |Policy Officer |WWF-Brazil |
|Ms |Birgit |Lukas | |GLOBE Europe |
|Mr |Robert |Madelin |Director |DG Trade |
|Ms |Kristen |Malinconico |Intern |US Mission to the EU |
|Mr |Aaron |Maltais |Researcher |Stockholm Environment Institute |
|Ms |Patricia |Maugain |DG Relex |European Commission |
|Mr |Richard |McNally |Economics and Global Policy Officer|WWF-UK |
|Mr |Javier |Mencos | |DG Development |
|Ms |Alexandra |Minerv |Journalist |Nouvelle Gazette |
|Ms |Pascale |Moisan |Assistant |WWF-EPO |
|Mr |Tadahiko |Mori |Bureau Chief |Naniki Newspapers |
|Ms |Anne |Muragu | |Heinrich Böll Fondation |
|Ms |Danielle |Nielsen | |Adamson |
|Ms |Signe |Ohakas |Attachée for Environmental Affairs |Estonian Mission to the EU |
|Mr |Sasha |Ojdanic |Second Secretary |Mission of RF Yugoslavia to the EU |
|Ms |Carmen |Olmedo |Policy Analyst |WIDE |
|Ms |Claire |Palmer | |European Commission |
|Mr |Sang Jin |Park |First Secretary |Korean Mission to the EU |
|Ms |Sarah |Paul | |European Commission |
|Mr |Johan |Pauwels |Expert Task Force Sustainable |Federal Planning Bureau |
| | | |Development | |
|Mr |Carlos |Paz Ide |First Secretary |Embassy of Bolivia |
|Mr |Manuel |Perez-Rochal Loyo |Coordinator Mexico - EU Project |RMALC |
|Ms |Mireille |Perrin |Trade and Investment Adviser |WWF-International |
|Mr |Reinhard |Quick |Director |UNICE |
|Ms |Angali |Ramachandran |Intern |ICDA |
|Ms |Birthe |Rodemberg |Policy Officer |WIDE |
|Mr |Juan |Rodrigo-Walsh |Director |FARN |
|Mr |Dafni |Ruscetta |Stagiaire |European Parliament |
|Ms |Claudia |Saladin |Director, Sustainable Commerce |WWF-US |
| | | |Program | |
|Mr |Claudio |Salinas |EuropAid Cooperation Office |European Commission |
|Ms |Elisa |Sanlage |Journalist |Agence France Presse |
|Dr |Hans |Schmidt |Economic Advisor |European Commission |
|Dr |Radu |Serban |Minister Consellor |Mission of Romania to the EU |
|Ms |Jana |Sermekovà |First Secretary |Mission of the Slovak Republic to the EU |
|Ms |Anna |Shiel |Economist |RSPB |
|Ms |Danuta |Skarbek |Stagiaire |ESC |
|Ms |Melanie |Sorges |Intern |Heinrich Böll Fondation |
|Ms |Barbara |Specht |Policy Analyst |WIDE |
|Mr |Dejan |Stankovic |Advisor |Govt of Yugoslavia |
|Ms |Silke |Steinhilber |Policy Officer |WIDE |
|Ms |Priscilla |Stephan |Program Officer |WWF-US |
|Mr |Singhal |Sushil |Second Secretary |Embassy of India |
|Ms |Margorzata |Tarasiewicz |Executive Director |Network of East-West Women |
|Ms |Marie-Cecile |Thirion |Policy Officer |Solagral |
|Mr |Frederic |Thoma |Programme Assistant |FoE Europe |
|Ms |Eva |Tosovska |Senior Researcher |Czech Academy of Sciences |
|Mr |Keith |Tyrell |Policy Analyst |WWF-EPO |
|Ms |Karin |Ulmer |Gender Officer |APRODEV |
|Mr |Raymond |Vanermen | |EPE |
|Mr |Christian |Vargas |Second Secretary |Brazilian Mission to the EU |
|Mr |Jean-Louis |Verheyden |Cabinet of M Baron Crespo |European Parliament |
|Mr |Patrick |Verkooijen |Policy Official |Ministry of Agriculture |
|Ms |Sonia |Vila-Hopkins |Policy Officer |Oxfam Int'l |
|Mr |Noriyuki |Wakisaka |Bureau Chief |The Asahi Shimbun |
|Ms |Margot |Wallström |Commissioner |DG Environment |
|Ms |Sieglinde |Wasielewski | |Auswärtiges Amt |
|Mr |David |Wilkinson |Policy Analyst |IEEP |
|Mr |Li |Xie |Third Secetary |Chinese Mission to the EU |
|Ms |Karin |Zaunberger |Scientific Officer |European Commission |
Summary of Presentations
David Wilkinson IEEP
David Wilkinson introduced SIA. He reminded delegates of the conclusions of the Göteborg summit in June 2001, which requires all major EU policy proposals to be subject to a sustainability assessment. He outlined the key characteristics of a sustainability assessment describing it as a systematic procedure to assess the positive and negative economic, social and environmental impacts of a proposed measure. SIA helps to clarify the nature of the problem, the objective to be achieved and outlines policy options for getting there. An SIA involves extensive stakeholder consultation, is an integral part of the policy-making process and will provide a transparent justification of the final policy choice. It should result in better informed political judgements, and help identify win-win solutions.
In June 2002, the Commission released a communication on Integrated Assessment which replaces all partial systems of assessment currently used by the Commission. The system will be underway from Autumn 2002. All policy proposals will be subjected to a preliminary assessment, and if required, a more detailed extended assessment. It remains to be seen how effective it will be – there are concerns that the environment will be sidelined and economic concerns take precedence. Also there is a worry that there will not be adequate resources for the initiative: –there is no new money on the table. To be successful the tool will require greater inter-institutional co-operation and DGs will have to work together. Member States will need to provide data for example on how they will transpose the policy measure and will have to set up ex post systems of monitoring. Stakeholder consultation are also a key component of this new communication.
Margot Wallström, Environment Commissioner
Commissioner Wallström discussed the role of SIA in EU policy-making and placed it in the context of the Commission’s Better Regulation initiative, which involves the setting up of new structures for decision-making. Getting the systems right is almost as important as the substance of the decisions and the new overhaul at the moment provides an opportunity to put the environment on a par with social and economic concerns.
The Commissioner introduced the recent Communication on integrated assessment agreed upon at Göteborg. She outlined three reasons for conducting SIAs:
1) Better analysis can improve the coherence and cost effectiveness of policies;
2) Policy-making is complex and we need to improve our knowledge base – SIA will help deepen our understanding of the issues;
3) The Commission is facing increasing pressure from other institutions, Member States, and citizens to provide justification for its policies – SIA provides a mechanism for this and contributes to greater openness and transparency.
Undertaking SIAs need not be as difficult as it sounds. It involves going back to basics and asking five simple questions:
A. What issue is the policy proposal expected to tackle?
B. What is the objective of the policy?
C. What are the policy options available?
D. What are the impacts of the options? And
E. How can the results be monitored and evaluated?
We need to avoid “paralysis by analysis” and the level of assessment must match the importance of the proposal. Thus, the Commission is proposing a two-stage approach whereby all proposals are subjected to a preliminary analysis and if this demonstrates a more detailed assessment is required, then the proposal will be subjected to an “extended” analysis.
But the Commissioner admitted that the assessments will be of little use if they are not acted on and integrated into the policy-making process. Similarly, while SIA can act as a focus for dialogue between policy-makers and interest groups, these stakeholders need to be confident that the results will actually be used to improve policy-making; otherwise they will not engage. The role of outside voices is important in SIAs, the insight that this engagement brings can be even more valuable than the output of the studies themselves. The Integrated Assessment Communication is intended to guarantee that all policy proposals are underpinned by a thorough analysis of their social, economic and environmental impacts. But They are not a substitute for political decision-making and difficult decisions will still need to be made.
Enriqué Barón Crespo MEP, President of the PES Group in the European Parliament
Enriqué Barón Crespo discussed the role of the European Parliament in delivering more sustainable policies. The big question is not whether sustainable development should be at the heart of European Policies, but rather how to put it there. In this respect, Mr Barón Crespo believes that there are lessons to be learned from the democratic process. The basic guidelines of democracy and involvement of the people should contribute to better regulation.
Mr Barón Crespo welcomed the Communication on integrated assessment, but he insisted that the role of the European Parliament has to be strengthened. Effective functioning of the Parliament also requires a reform of its systems, for example, by improving the co-ordination of its committees, and of political groupings.
Sustainable development must be mainstreamed into policy, but the message from the Spanish Presidency is that the environment is not at the heart of EU policy-making. Sustainable development was unfortunately not on the agenda of the European Council meeting in Seville. Sustainable development must be integrated into the whole policy-making framework, and this means action at a high level. At the same time, the local level must not be neglected.
Karim Dahou, Coordinator of Enda Prospectives-Policies Dialogues
Karim Dahou’s presentation focussed on a study of the EU-Senegalese fishing agreements. These agreements are based on the principle of complementarity, which assumes that the fleets of coastal developing countries do not have the capacity to exploit all of their fish stocks, and that this slack can be taken up by EU fleets. But such an assumption needs to be proven and agreements based on this principle should be backed up by a precise assessment of fish stocks and fishing capacity.
The EU-Senegal fishing agreements are part of a broader package of policies and agreements, and should not be viewed in isolation. Yet they are not aligned with Senegal’s development objectives. The agreements have improved the profitability of the export fish sector at the expense of domestic markets. despite negative social, environmental and economic impacts in Senegal, these agreements persist. The subsidies offered through the agreements have resulted in a massive increase in the catches of a handful of commercially valuable species, pushing such species to the very limit; socially, there have been problems in providing basic food needs to domestic markets; and economically the fragility of the fish stocks due to overfishing threatens the Senegalese economy fish exports account for 35% of export receipts and these are threatened by the potential collapse of stocks.
Hanan Awwad, Friends of the Earth Middle East,
Hanan Awwad presented the findings of a study, which assessed the environmental implications of the Mediterranean Free Trade Zone for the Jordanian Phosphate manufacturing sector. Jordan is the world’s second largest exporter of phosphate – the industry is a major source of employment and foreign currency in Jordan. But it is also associated with a number of negative environmental impacts. It is a large water user as it accounts for over half of all industrial water consumption in Jordan. It is also associated with air pollution and human health and biodiversity impacts.
Under the MFTZ Jordan is planning to expand phosphate production by 67% over the next 10 years. Water consumption is expected to increase from 14mcm in 1998 to 24mcm in 2006, and from 11mcm to 15mcm for the fertiliser industry. Fuel consumption will increase by nearly a third and solid waste productions will also rise significantly. These findings suggest there is an urgent need for a SIA of the MFTZ. FoE recommends that a sustainability strategy be prepared for the region with sustainability targets and indicators/measures to promote higher environmental standards and adequate enforcement.
Alvaro Luchiezi, WWF Brazil, Brazil
Alvaro Luchiezi of WWF Brazil presented the results of an in-depth study of the environmental and social impacts of the expansion of the soy sector in Brazil.. The study was part of the WWF project on SIA which aims to promote the uptake of the tool by Governments; increase capacity of stakeholders to engage in the process; and contribute to the development of the tool through case studies.
Alvaro outlined the social, environmental and economic characteristics of the soy sector. Soy is a mainstay of the Brazilian economy accounting for US$3.5 billion of revenue in 2000. Nearly 5.4 million people work in the Brazilian soy bean agribusiness sector. But soy production is associated with environmental problems including deforestation, pollution, erosion, and siltation of water supplies. Soy production is capital intensive and mechanisation has resulted in the loss of rural jobs and rural migration. The structure of the industry has been strongly influenced by government policies such as taxation and subsidies.
Alvaro presented a number of policy recommendations that had emerged from the study including more effective law enforcement; restructuring of the systems of taxation and subsidies; increase the awareness of environmental and social impacts of the business; involve local municipalities more in environmental protection and restoration measures; reward financially municipalities which are environmental leaders; promote integrated pest management; enact conservation measures to prevent encroachment on sensitive areas; and social policies to mitigate the negative effects.
Karin Ulmer, APRODEV
Karin Ulmer presented preliminary results of a gender assessment study, which examines the likely impacts of future EU-Zimbabwe trade arrangements on poor women and men. Policy formulation needs to ensure that trade arrangements work to the benefit of the poor. The assessment starts from the basic challenge of making trade arrangements work for the poor who experience poverty precisely because they lack access to economic resources, which enable them to produce and trade competitively.
In Zimbabwe, figures show that 62% of the rural population is classified as poor to very poor, with 70% of women living in communal areas. 74% of female headed households are poor to very poor compared to 54% of male headed households. It is assumed that increased production of export crops can undermine food security. A complex network of social and economic linkages binds women in communal areas with developments in the wider economy. It is essential to understand this wider social context within which women engage with the economy in order to understand how trade arrangements will impact on women. This requires new tools to analyse the micro level issues, which are important to women and have a bearing on the impact of trade on women.
More than 50% of employees in cut flower production are women. A shift from seasonal to permanent employment of women has led to considerable improvement in the labour conditions of all women employed on the farms dealing with cut flower production for export. Women on cut flower farms have been the primary beneficiaries of improvements in wages and working conditions. The issue of women’s access to land and economic resources needs to be addressed domestically if women are to be economically empowered to meet the challenges of free trade.
The ultimate aim of trade policies for developing countries should be to assist or bring about the transformation of the economy in developing countries and enhance the quality of life, especially for poor women and men. Specifically, those trade preferences which encourage production in sectors which improve the status and working conditions of women, should be preserved and enhanced. If new trade arrangements do not benefit the poor, such arrangements will not be socially, politically or economically sustainable.
Prof. Colin Kirkpatrick, University of Manchester IDPM
Professor Kirkpatrick updated delegates on the methodology that the University of Manchester has developed for the EC. He outlined the purpose and nature of the studies and explained where they will fit into the decision making process. The methodology is applicable to individual trade agreements and to the WTO overarching negotiations. It is based on a core set of indicators and looks at a range of pre defined scenarios. One of its key roles is to identify “flanking” measures to mitigate the worst effects of the agreements and enhance their benefits. SIAs should begin as early as possible in the negotiating process. They begin with a screening and scoping exercise and follow an iterative process of comment, review and consultation before the final study appears. It should feed into the negotiations as they progress, and should be followed up with a monitoring and evaluation regime.
IDPM is conducting the study of the Doha Development Agenda. The first three studies are on environmental services, market access and competition. The reporting structure begins with an inception report which sets out the proposed scope and approach of the studies (July 2002) and is followed up with a mid-term (December 2002) and then a final report (April 2003).
Aaron Maltais, Stockholm Environment Institute (SEI)
Aaron Maltais presented the findings of the SIA of the WTO negotiations in the major food crops sector SEI conducted for the EC. The study examined the impacts of liberalisation of edible oils and wheat in eight country groupings – Argentina, Australia, Egypt, EU, India, Indonesia, Senegal, US. He also presented some valuable insights into the practicalities of carrying out an SIA. He discussed methodological advances made during the study and highlighted some of the difficulties and problems encountered.
SEI used computable general equilibrium models in the study, but one of the main problems was that the team could not find modelling data that matched the scenarios outlined in the study. Similarly, while the modelling work was adequate to determine the direction of the impacts, it was not sensitive enough to give accurate results. Aaron gave a brief summary of the results which showed a great deal of variation across and within the countries involved. For example, the study uncovered potential food security problems for marginal groups such as rural women in Senegal and Egypt.
Overall the methodology stood up well. Despite the time and resources needed for individual sectoral studies, they are essential to produce meaningful results. Sustainability impacts and conditions are highly site specific and aggregated studies tend to lose a lot of critical information. Macro level studies are only a starting point and need to be supplemented with “hot spot” case studies to fill in the gaps.
Silke Steinhilber, Network Women in Development Europe (WIDE)
Silke Steinhilber presented the Gender perspective of SIA. Effective integration of gender concerns into SIA will result in more equal distribution of the costs and benefits of a policy; enhanced efficiency; the identification of sectors of opportunity and equality and justice. Furthermore it will lead to greater participation and representation in policy-making by underrepresented groups. However, there are obstacles to overcome, including the fact that there is little experience and resources for advancing gender aspects in SIA which means that disaggregated data is lacking, awareness is poor and the tools are non-existent / unknown. Furthermore, effective participation in SIAs by gender groups is very limited. The timing of SIA is often inadequate and there is a lack of policy coherence between EU human rights, gender, development and trade policy.
Marie-Cecile Thirion, SOLAGRAL
Solagral expects SIAs to rebalance the content of trade negotiations and question the assumption that blind liberalisation is always good for development. Marie-Cecile wants SIAs to improve European policy making by focusing on “the four Cs” - co-ordination, complementarity and coherence and co-operation.
EU trade policy has to be made more sustainable. There is a conflict between EU policies – the EU offers favourable conditions for certain products from developing countries, but at the same time, EU production policies, export regimes and the implementation of strict norms undermine production and exports of these countries. Marie-Cecile highlighted the cases of cotton, cereals, tomato sauce, beef and milk to illustrate this point.
SIAs should not only address the direct impact of policies on sustainable development but also evaluate the capacity of these policies to reduce and mitigate risk. Marie-Cecile identified ten types of risk:
- Market monopolies (on input markets and on food markets)
- Embargoes (on exports and on imports)
- Climate accidents
- Difficulties to reinitiate agricultural activities
- Sanitary problems that are increase by trade
- Limited access to credit
- Price instability
- Specialisation on production and export of primary products
- Unstable growth linked to specialisation
- Inequality and growth since economic growth do not profit to all
Therefore, SIAs should try to answer the following questions:
Is EU trade policy minimising the risks? Is it increasing them or even provoking their realisation? How can we minimise the impacts of such risks? Can EU trade policy be a risk mitigation instrument?
SIAs should look at the following indicators and fields:
- Trends (economic, social, environmental)
- The three pillars, and especially the situation of poor people
- The risk aspect within the three pillars
- Impact of the whole policy and not only the trade policy
Reinhard Quick, UNICE
European business is supportive of the Commission’s initiative to carry out a sustainability impact assessment (SIA) of the WTO negotiations. It will allow for a better understanding of the effects of trade liberalisation. However, the impact assessment has to meet one basic requirement if it is to be relied upon: all indicators need to be taken into account equally, with respect to the three sustainability dimensions, i.e. the environmental, the social as well as the economic dimension – economic indicators of this exercise should not be forgotten!
To understand why and where trade enters into the sustainable development debate, it is important to understand the root causes of environmental degradation or social problems. Conflicts arise as a result of the failure of political institutions to address such problems. Governments must do their part by regulating pollution and fighting against resource degrading activities appropriately, as well as by addressing critical social issues Should we argue against trade liberalisation if SIA might point to unsustainable results, or do we rather need to address the underlying problem – namely the policy failure - when we engage in trade negotiations?
European business considers that the international institutional architecture can and should be used to combine trade liberalisation with positive rule-making to arrive at sustainable solutions. The WTO is not any longer a pure trade agreement. Given the fact that trade has already been liberalised to a large extent, and that the WTO has already engaged in "positive rule making”, the WTO is a forum which could address instances where the trade liberalisation and policy failures are closely linked. The primary mission of the WTO should be to liberalise trade in a sustainable manner.
Robert Madelin, Director DG Trade
Robert Madelin presented the EC SIA programme and outlined what the tool means to DG Trade. SIA is a tool for embedding “trade policy” in a broader and coherent set of EU policies and it is a process for engaging all interested parties in the development of that policy.
The Commission’s SIA programme reflects, in both respects, its realisation, since 1998 that the content of trade policy, and the way trade policy is made, had to be modernised.
But the EU is not alone in conducting SIAs – the programme sits in a global context that lends comfort to EU’s pioneering activities: Mr Madelin highlighted UNEP’s work in the field and he pointed to the Doha mandate which gives visibility to impact assessment as part of the WTO process; WSSD also offers an opportunity to expand the uptake of the tool.
Mr Madelin outlined the basic requirements for a successful SIA and highlighted some of the obstacles encountered so far. SIAs are major undertaking but they have to be manageable. One way of focussing the work is to restrict the scenarios for analysis– there should not be too many, they should be politically realistic. SIAs have to involve consultation and transparency, and there must be a clear process for debate on each SIA and for institutions (EP, Council, Commission) to react. The challenges faced include ownership – negotiators, constituencies, institutions all have to invest time and effort in order to influence the process. All constituencies have to get involved. Data: new data is needed, and should be shaped with SIA in mind. Resources: for the Commission, for other countries, for all constituencies… This activity does not come cheap.
Gillian Guthrie, Director, Environmental Protection & Conservation,
Ministry of Land and Environment, Jamaica
Gillian Guthrie presented a Jamaican view of SIA. She outlined the Jamaican policy framework on sustainable development and trade and introduced Jamaican systems of impact assessment. Jamaica is a member of CARICOM and is committed to conducting trade negotiations as a bloc. CARICOM has never conducted an SIA, but there have been requests from civil society in the region for such studies to be carried out. Gillian Guthrie outlined some of the benefits of an SIA for the region including greater understanding of the impact of trade agreements on vulnerable sectors and better policy coherence, but she also highlighted some obstacles to their adoption. These include the difficulty of persuading policy-makers of their relevance, a lack of financial/technical resources and data, and the need for better mechanisms to facilitate inter-ministerial and intergovernmental co-ordination on policy formulation.
Bernard Kuiten, Counsellor External Relations, World Trade Organization (WTO)
Most if not all parties, whether countries, NGOs, parliamentarians and academics seem to agree on the importance of SIA as a tool to determine the sustainability of policies, be it trade, economy or otherwise. But the question remains how and where this tool should become operational. And possibly, at what costs? The Doha Ministerial Declaration leaves the door open for SIAs. Paragraph 6 strongly reaffirms Members' commitment to the objective of sustainable development, but "only" takes note of Member's efforts to conduct national environmental assessments of trade policies on a voluntary basis. Para 33 encourages governments to share expertise and experience with Members wishing to perform environmental reviews at the national level. Paragraph 33 can therefore be considered as an enforcement of the latter part of paragraph 6. The words "voluntary" and "national level" seem crucial. So far, the official country record is limited to the EU, Canada, the US and at the intergovernmental level UNEP, UNCTAD and OECD.
Each country is different – legal and economic capacities, level of development, expertise and local situations will all influence their willingness to conduct an SIA. Certain WTO members therefore express fear for harmonised and one-size fits-all SA procedures. Thus countries with a high(er) degree of experience in SA development and application play a crucial role in positioning WTO's role in developing SA in trade policies. They will have to find a careful balance between promoting the SA in trade policy, and countries individual needs, demands and possibilities. This suggests a tailor-made, case-by-case methodology is called for.
The WTO's role on SIAs is twofold: (1) a forum for experience sharing, as highlighted in the Doha Declaration (2) based upon demand, provide complementary technical assistance on SA case studies and methodologies.
The Doha Declaration is sufficiently balanced to allow SAs to become a more important national policy tool, without making it mandatory or obligatory. The WTO's role remains determined by the course of its members: concretely, the CTE is mandated to report on technical assistance and capacity building, as well as environmental reviews undertaken at the national level.
Pierre Defraigne, Head of Cabinet of Trade Commissioner Pascal Lamy
M Defraigne explained that the Commission is keen to find new ways of integrating sustainable development into its policies. And SIA is an exciting tool which offers a lot of potential. There is a strong case for trade liberalisation – it generates efficiency gains and promotes growth. But the side effects are far less obvious and more controversial. Crucially the question of who benefits from liberalisation is often ignored, yet there is no doubt that there are winners and losers.
SIAs interestingly focus on these side -effects of trade but application of the tool also has drawbacks. It is very expensive, very time consuming and the results are often ambiguous. A lot of the ambiguity stems from the fact that the data used for the studies is not available because these issues have been neglected in the past. As time progresses, more date and information will be available and the methodology will become more robust.
The EC is committed to conducting SIAs for all of its major trade agreements. The European Parliament will be invited to scrutinise the reports. A strong Parliament would be valuable in redressing the balance and offsetting the market forces which dominate the process.
Governments should develop and implement policies to address negative social and environmental effects of liberalisation. But how do you persuade Governments to take this action? Possible mechanisms include aid, political dialogue and going further along the liberalisation path with responsible governments who follow appropriate supporting policies. At the same time, when translating SIA outputs into policy changes, one has to consider that we are part of a global system.
H.E. José Alfredo Graça Lima, Ambassador, Brazilian Mission to the EU
The EU is a valuable trading partner for Brazil. It accounts for around 30% of exports and Brazil imports around the same amount from the EU. Sustainable development is a goal, but the Ambassador admitted to concerns when sustainable trade was mentioned. Sustainable development should not come at the expense of trade liberalisation. While he acknowledged the real concerns of NGOs such as WWF and welcomed their work to remove environmentally damaging subsidies, he was more sceptical about the motivation of other actors. Some would like to use the sustainability argument to reduce the market access of developing countries and this would have negative repercussions on development opportunities.
Brazil’s focus at the moment is to improve its economic efficiency for the benefit of its population. Instead of placing barriers to trade, more effort should be placed on harmonising trade rules and environmental policy, so that one does not undermine the other.
Caroline Lucas, MEP
SIAs are vitally important if trading relations and agreements are to be truly sustainable. But what is also needed is a fundamental overhaul of the EU trade policy making process in order to ensure transparency and accountability in EU trade policy in general, and SIAs in particular. SIAs need to be an integral part of the whole process. Dr Lucas wants to see commitment from the Commission to have truly sustainable trade policies that are assessed at all stages of the policy process, not just after the agreement has already been made, and to see transparent and democratic consultation and implementation processes for SIAs and for the wider trade policy making process.
SIAs are critical, yet the SIAs as proposed by the Commission suffer from two short-comings - one theoretical, the other practical. Theoretically, they have been constructed in a way which takes trade liberalisation for granted. Therefore, despite the Commission's commitment to sustainable development in theory, its commitment to trade liberalisation comes first. As always, the impacts on people and planet are only assessed after the course of trade liberalisation has been struck. Liberalisation is not necessarily bad, but similarly it is not always good and this is not recognised.
The practice of SIA does not encourage confidence. The proposals for SIA were first made in 1999 and DG Trade agreed to commit 10 % of its budget to conduct SIAs over the next three years. But SIAs are being conducted late in the day: there is a tendency to sign the agreement, then look at whether or not the agreement is "sustainable." This looks suspiciously like a case of trade agreement "greenwash." A trade agreement should not be concluded, until the SIA has been made.
The lack of transparency and democracy in the EU trade policy process, including that of SIAs is a major flaw. Although the European Parliament was informed about the methodology of SIAs back when the Commission pioneered the idea, MEPs have never been consulted about the form and content of concrete plans for SIAs. If EU trade policy is ever to be truly accountable, we will need a revision of the EC Treaty concerning the common commercial policy so as to guarantee full involvement of the European Parliament in this sphere"(e.g. providing for Parliament to be consulted on the negotiating, opening up the so-called 133 Committee to Parliament’s representatives, and requiring Parliament’s assent to all trade agreements).
Mikel Insausti, WWF European Policy Office
For far too long, trade policy has been developed, and trade treaties signed, without much consideration given to their social, development and environmental consequences. Conducting SAs of trade policy is step number one in beginning to reverse this situation.
SAs should begin with the assumption that trade and trade liberalisation is not an end in itself, but a means to sustainable development. Currently, the SIAs conducted by the European Commission explicitly exclude in their ToR the possibility of questioning the desirability of trade liberalisation. Instead, the Commission SIAs focus on identifying measures to mitigate the negative impacts of trade liberalisation or enhancing its positive effects.
SAs should adopt a balanced analytical approach combining quantitative and qualitative techniques. They should be ongoing, generating information on sustainability aspects of existing trade policies, identifying trends and their causes, and then feeding into the development of new policies. The Commission’s SIAs have generally started too late.
Increasing stakeholder involvement is key to the SA process. As well as enhancing the sense of public ownership and trust in resulting policies, greater participation will unlock new sources of information for policy makers. NGOs need to strengthen their own capacity to engage in the SIA process and the Commission must be more willing to engage its trading partners and local stakeholders. There is a need to bring SIAs closer to the policy-makers and involve all Community institutions: Commission, Parliament and Council. The reach of SIAs should extend well beyond the Commission. It is important that SIAs are ‘owned’ by all EU institutions and Member States if they really are to influence policy outcomes.
Since the Commission began carrying out SIAs in 1999, some progress has been made on the methodologies, although there are fundamental problems that need to be corrected. There are growing concerns that the SIA tool is becoming a cosmetic exercise to defend EU trade positions, rather than a real attempt to formulate sustainable trade policies. Real improvements are needed on the use of SIA by the Commission. It is urgent that the Commission develop the proper infrastructure to facilitate the effective use of SIAs, and to ensure the integration of SIA results into the policy-making machinery.
PART C – RESOURCES AND DOCUMENTATION
Presentations of Invited Speakers
Karin Ulmer APRODEV
Presentation - Sustainability Assessment and
the Millennium Development Goal an ACP Case Study
Preliminary Note
▪ The following presentation is based on a gender assessment study, which is in the process of being carried out, and which looks into the likely impacts of future EU-Zimbabwe trade arrangements on poor women and men. For this purpose, APRODEV is working with the Zimbabwe Non-State Actors Forum, which was interested in carrying out such a study.
▪ We are, however, very mindful of the current political and economic crisis in the country, and recognise that the domestic economic situation is being radically transformed.
▪ Despite this situation, the preliminary results of the study illustrate the importance of a process approach to impact assessments, as it shows once more that there is no linear progress, but that situations keep changing, both in response to domestic, climatic and external factors (e.g. the US farm bill).
Making Trade Arrangements work for the Poor
The basic challenge is making trade arrangements work for the poor. The question arises how do we go about ensuring that trade arrangements work to the benefit of the poor, who experience poverty precisely because they lack access to economic resources, which enable them to produce and trade competitively.
The first question, which has to be addressed is: Who are the poor?
For example in Zimbabwe, figures show that 62% of the rural population is classified as poor to very poor, with 70% of women living in communal areas. 74% of female headed households are poor to very poor compared to 54% of male headed households.
The second issue, which needs to be addressed is: How are the poor affected by trade arrangements?
Often when people think about trade and trade arrangements, they first think about exports and trade preferences, but the import part of the trade equation is far more important under moves towards trade liberalisation, particularly for women who are often primarily involved in production for the local, national and regional markets.
The question needs to be raised: To what extent does cash crop production for export – which may increase due to CAP reform – affect food production for local markets and, hence, food security for families – in which women often play a key role?
Certainly this is a complex issue. It is assumed that increased production of export crops can undermine food security. However earlier in Zimbabwe the shift to cut flower production for export improved incomes and wages on the farms concerned and created new market opportunities for small-scale maize farmers. The actual impact on food security will vary from case to case but it does not necessarily follow that increased exports automatically undermine domestic food security.
Against this background we need to look at those products which are important to women in terms of what they currently produce and what they can produce in the context of the complex social structures within which women gain access to economic resources.
Often SIA studies consider aggregate and macro situations, which lose sight of the micro realities on the ground. They tend to focus on the major products traded and since women are less involved in these areas, they tend to neglect developments in markets which are important to women
For example, principal crops produced by women in communal areas are maize, cotton, sugar, groundnuts, beans, cowpeas; minor crops in commercial terms are beans, cowpeas and groundnuts. Women in communal areas face a subordinate economic position, ie women only have access to land in semi-arid regions, are allocated the smallest or worst pieces of land, often at a long distance, with secondary access to land via husbands or male relatives.
During lean seasons, women and children depend largely on wage remittances from family members employed in the formal sector. Rural women are thus as much consumers of externally produced foodstuffs as producers of commercial surpluses.
A complex network of social and economic linkages binds women in communal areas with developments in the wider economy. For example, developments in employment trends in the wider economy (closure of factories, retrenchment of state workers) will have a direct bearing on the economic well being of women in rural areas.
We need to understand this wider social context within which women engage with the economy in order to understand how trade arrangements will impact on women.
What we need to do is find ways to analyse the micro level issues, which are important to women and have a bearing on the impact which trade arrangements have on women.
SIA as the Starting Point for Participatory Processes
The approach we have chosen is to engage in an impact assessment study as a starting point, not a one-off event. The objective is to launch a process that allows stakeholders to deepen their understanding of trade policy issues over time, to identify the policy questions at stake, and to look into the likely impacts of policies on people. The participatory process aims at helping those affected to understand and find solutions to problems faced.
The approach we have chosen is to take available data as a basis for further study, and to provide possibilities for a reality check with actors/stakeholders in the different sectors or communities.
It needs to be acknowledged that this is a difficult process to undertake. In this light, support and co-operation for such a process should be sought from a broad range of actors on the ground.
In the case of Zimbabwe, we have chosen a three phase approach. A design phase, a research phase which takes account of different expertise available in the country, in sectors and social groups, and an advocacy and strategy phase, where findings of the research are used to develop a strategic advocacy approach for non-state actors.
A Process Approach: Bringing our Understanding closer to Reality
Once non-state actors understand and contribute with their experience on what is actually happening on the ground, then a meaningful analysis of the impacts will be possible.
We must bear in mind that, in developing countries, we will often find a huge discrepancy between the formal reality, or written and agreed policy, and the actual reality on the ground.
It is necessary to bear in mind that, formal and informal economies follow different rationale and rules and come up with different survival strategies. Production units are not individual units, but interact or involve the whole of the community. And it is the household unit with its gendered roles of women and men that interacts continuously with the formal and the informal economy.
We need to explore and understand the differential impact of big issues on little people. The position of women in society and their participation in the market differs greatly from the position of men, but they are intrinsically linked with each other.
For example, any agricultural development programmes need to be designed and implemented in a gender sensitive manner. If not, women will not only fail to benefit from a commercially orientated and male dominated modernisation of agriculture, but may be forced to cope with a growing demand for labour intensive farm tasks, and sometimes be forced to adapt themselves and their households to lower living standards and increasing poverty.
Translating SIA into Policy Formulation
Policy formulation needs to ensure that trade arrangements work to the benefit of the poor.
The ultimate aim of trade policies for developing countries should be how trade policies can assist or bring about the transformation of the economy in developing countries and enhance the quality of life, especially for poor women and men. Specifically, those trade preferences which encourage production in sectors which improve the status and working conditions of women, should be preserved and enhanced.
For example, more than 50% of employees in cut flower production are women. A shift from seasonal to permanent employment of women in cut flower production has seen considerable improvement in the labour conditions of all women employed on the farms concerned with cut flower production for export. This improvement in labour conditions has led to improved efficiency and quality standards.
Women on cut flower farms have been the primary beneficiaries of improvements in wages and working conditions. As such they are likely to be adversely affected by any loss of preferential access to the EU market, which any reversion to standard GSP treatment (generalised system of preferences) would entail. All other factors being equal (which in Zimbabwe they clearly are not), this would result in disincentives to investment and production.
In addition the issue of women’s access to land and economic resources needs to be addressed domestically if women are to be economically empowered to meet the challenges of free trade. This is a major challenge and one which will require specifically designed programmes to overcome existing gender bias and progressively bring about social change. This cannot be achieved overnight. Yet without such change women are likely to find themselves by-passed by the opportunities opened up under free trade arrangements. This would have profound implications for some of the poorest of the poor.
Lessons to be learned
While the Commission should fund impact assessment studies these should be just the starting point for more extensive discussions and debate with concerned stakeholders. The process of discussion and debate will need to be broken down to address the specific issues, which face particular social groups. The Commission is not well placed to support this type of process approach to impact assessment. NGOs could however play a useful role in supporting these participatory processes. The scope for collaboration in this regard should be exploited. Ex ante prevention of damage to poor people is by far better than efforts for ex post corrections.
We need to “Keep our eyes on the prize”, namely making sure that new trade arrangements work for the poor. Therefore criteria are needed, which help to assess the likely impact of particular trade measures on various social groups, which go to make up the poor in different developing countries. If new trade arrangements do not benefit the poor, such arrangements will not be socially, politically or economically sustainable. Growing inequality will provoke social conflict, political instability, and will undermine the necessary conditions for macro-economic stability. We will instead see increased crime and social conflict and declining investment.
Marie-Cecile Thirion, SOGRAL
Stakeholders perspectives on Sustainability Assessment of Trade Policies and agreements But at the same time, EU production policies, export
The development perspective
What are our expectations from the SIAs?
We expect that SIA will be a real assessment of impact of trade on sustainable development. That means that it should take into account environmental impact as well as social impact (impact on poverty reduction and on food security) and economic impact (who is affected by the economic development? What are the constraints to economic development?) .
Why are some countries and populations not able to enter the regional/world economy?
SIAs should be a tool to re-balance the content of trade negotiations and begin to change the still pregnant ideology that liberalisation is good for sustainable development, accompanied by small actions to correct the inevitable negative effects of trade.
What are the fields to be studied?
The four "C"
There are different fields we would like to see SIAs addressing. The first one concerns European policies. This is in line with the Maastricht treaty (07/02/92) that underlines the need to reinforce the three "C" (co-ordination, complementarity and coherence). To this should be added a fourth C: cooperation.
Trade policy
The different fields concerned are Trade policies (import and export regimes), production policies and norms. If we focus on agriculture, we can underline the following problems that should be addressed during the SIA exercise:
EU import regime seems to be in favour of developing countries and more specifically, LDCs: all tropical products are tax free (except banana and sugar); since March 2001, LDCs exports are tax free (except banana until 2006, rice and sugar until 2009). regimes ad the implementation of strict norms district are very destructive for production and exports of developing countries.
In West Africa, cotton production is a main export (In Benin, it represents 80% of exports and 40% of GDP). But international prices have fallen, prices are still fixed by the option stock market in New York, quotas are still in place on textile imports until the Textile agreement is implemented (2005), important subsidies are given to production in US (50 billion €),
China (15 billion €) and EU (10 billion €).
Concerning cereals, the EU policy was reformed in 1992 with a reduction of direct subsidies but no control of production (the production first decreased but rapidly increased to compensate for the fall in revenue of the producers). European prices fell and became competitive for animal feed and, since 1998, for export on world market. Export subsidies fell from 2.2 billion ECU in 1992 to 883 million € in 1999. But at the same time direct aid increased from 0 in 1992 to 12.8 billion € in 1999, out of which 2.1 billion goes to the production of cereal for export. If we add export subsidies, it is around 3 billion € that have been given to produce 9 million tons of cereal to be exported. Therefore, even if the products exported (i.e. wheat) are not the same as the ones produced locally in developing countries, they compete directly with local products.
In the middle of the 80's, the EU had huge surpluses of beef and export subsidies were important. In West and Central Africa, low price products from EU were sold in 1993 at 2.5 €/Kg and benefited from export subsidies of 2 €/Kg. Between 1981 and 1992, EU exports to the region increased by 87% and exports of local meat were cut by half. The devaluation of the Franc CFA re-established some competition but the beef crisis and new EU subsidies may introduce once more unfair competition. In Southern Africa, in 1996, the elimination of quantitative restrictions translated into an important increase of European meat imports.
The milk market is no better. The 1984 reform implemented quotas to control production. But EU represents still 40% of the international milk market. Therefore, the important export subsidies (in 1999, 78% for milk powder and 129% for butter) have a direct impact on international prices that are decreasing. Moreover, foreign companies have generally built milk factories in developing countries and they use milk powder to make milk products. Therefore, there is no place for local production.
Subsidies for processing can also have negative impacts on production in developing countries. Five countries produce tomato sauce within the EU. Prices in Europe are twice the prices in Africa. Nevertheless, EU exports 25% of its production and West Africa imports 80% of its consumption. And this is thanks to the fixing, by the EU, of a minimal price, quality norms and production subsidies.
Risk mitigation
SIAs should not only address the direct impact of policies on sustainable development but also evaluate the capacity of these policies to reduce and mitigate risk.
For example, if we look at food security within a liberalisation context, we can identify ten types of risk:
- Market monopolies (on input markets and on food markets – i.e. EU controls 40% of the international milk market and US 30% of maize market)
- Embargoes (on exports and on imports)
- Climate accidents (their impact on prices are decreased by the development of trade)
- Difficulties to reinitiate agricultural activities (cost of capital and low capital recovery, expertise…)
- Sanitary problems that are increase by trade
- Limited access to credit (for import, for selling on local and international market, for producing)
- Price instability (on food market for importing countries and consumers, on primary products for exports of developing countries)
- Specialisation on production and export of primary products (ex: in Africa, in 1937/38, tropical products (beverage + sugar) represented 26% of exports for 52% in 1972)
- Unstable growth linked to specialisation (since agricultural prices are decreasing)
- Inequality and growth since economic growth do not profit to all
Therefore, SIAs should try to answer the following questions:
Is EU trade policy minimising the risks? Is it increasing them or even provoking their realisation? How can we minimise the impacts of such risks? Can EU trade policy be a risk mitigation instrument?
Some thoughts for SIAs
SIAs should look at the following indicators and fields:
- Trends (economic, social, environmental)
- The three pillars, and especially the situation of poor people
- The risk aspect within the three pillars
- Impact of the whole policy and not only the trade policy (i.e. in agriculture, the production policy, the EU market management, the subsidies to processing…)
Reinhard Quick, The European Business Perspective
Sustainability Assessment in the EU, Stakeholder Perspectives
on Sustainability Assessment of Trade Policies and Agreements
I would like to concentrate on the question on what we are we going to do with the sustainability impact assessment findings in the course of the negotiations. To what extent will these findings guide the negotiations? Will they lead to more or less, or a different trade liberalisation? I would like to concentrate on SIA in the context of the WTO negotiations.
It was only very recent, ladies and gentlemen, that the Nobel prize winners Milton Friedman and Gary Becker claimed that economic freedom should be established world-wide, in order to create welfare and to prevent poverty and terrorism. The formula behind this statement is simple but nevertheless convincing: the more economic freedom, the more per-capita-income.
This formula is confirmed by a 50 years' experience on markets world-wide - trade liberalisation is clearly one of the cylinders that propel the engine of growth. Now, at the outset of the 21st century, the role of trade changed in the context of a globalised world: We have become aware that trade liberalisation is and should be used as an essential tool for sustainable development.
Undoubtedly, liberalising trade in goods is desirable, it will result in welfare gains purely economically speaking. Yet this is not any longer sufficient if we take the notion of sustainable development as our “Leitmotiv”. We therefore must assess the non-trade impacts of trade liberalisation and need to put the social, environmental and development aspects into context with a view to achieving a balanced result. In view of this European business is supportive of the Commission’s initiative to carry out a sustainability impact assessment (SIA) of the WTO negotiations.
The SIA framework is designed to assess the sustainability impact of each negotiating subject included in the Doha Development Agenda. It will allow for a better understanding of the effects trade liberalisation entails. Thus, SIA, in my view, can help informing and assisting the negotiators throughout the negotiations and help to arrive at solutions which indeed deserve the label "sustainable".
However, the impact assessment has to meet one basic requirement if it is to be relied upon: All indicators need to be taken into account equally, with respect to the three sustainability dimensions, i.e. the environmental, the social as well as the economic dimension. It will not astonish you when I insist that the economic indicators of this exercise should not be forgotten! An appropriate input analysis will help to understand the inter-relationship between trade liberalisation and non-trade concerns. As far as the economic indicators are concerned I would not only look at the tariff structure, the relative prices, the terms of trade and business opportunities, I would also include research and development data.
We have to admit the limitations of SIA, however, whatever methodology we accept. SIA gives indications and provides for elements which the negotiators should take into account. There will and must be a political discussion on how to use the SIA findings.
To understand why and where trade enters into the sustainable development debate, it is important to understand the root causes of environmental degradation or social problems. These can often be traced back to various market and policy failures. In other words: Conflicts arise as a result of the failure of political institutions to address environmental and social problems!
So, what does this suggest? First, it suggests that governments must do their part by regulating polluting and resource degrading activities appropriately as well as by addressing the social issues according to their stage of development. Here, the initiative may shift from the national to the bilateral or international level. In addition, democratic political structures and processes turn out to be important. Comparing countries at the same income level, pollution tends to be worse in countries with skewed income distribution, a high degree of illiteracy and few political and civil liberties. Thus we have to draw the conclusion that the equation "more trade = more income + less pollution" is generally short-cut, and can only be applied in selected contexts. Instead, we need to integrate institutional and democratic reforms which are necessary for allowing ordinary citizens to articulate their preferences for environmental quality and influence the political decision making process.
But this is not enough! So, what else do we need? In order to give an answer, let's scrutinise the issue of policy failures. Should we argue against trade liberalisation if this exercise might lead to unsustainable results, or do we rather need to address the underlying problem – namely the policy failure - when we engage in trade negotiations?
Let me give you an example: Imagine zero tariffs for wood and paper would lead to unsustainable forest management. Should we therefore claim that trade should not be liberalised and maintain the status quo? Or would it not be better to also address the policy failure. One could for example imagine capacity building exercises to overcome the problem, one could also imagine bilateral negotiations on specific positive rules and finally one could imagine negotiations of an international agreement, laying down specific basic requirements on how to achieve sustainable forest management?
If we drive down this road, we will immediately have to discuss where to negotiate such a side-agreement.
We have international institutions which deal with environmental, developmental and social questions. European business favours a division of labour between these institutions and calls upon them to contribute to international rule-making in their respective field of expertise. We see a need for WTO, ILO, UNEP and other international organisations to co-operate so that they altogether make sustainable development work.
We understand that this approach is not ideal since not all institutions are effective, yet we believe that it reflects existing international governance structures and as long as the world is not ready for radical institutional changes at international level we should at least try and make the existing institutions work.
We are aware of the shortcomings of this approach, we believe however that we can address them:
First, the traditional form of negotiations between sovereign states under public international law leaves us with the dilemma of non-ratification: International agreements are based upon the principle of national sovereignty; states are free to sign and ratify the negotiated conventions. Suppose that a state opposes the ratification of the convention on sustainable forest management - the international system has difficulties in convincing this state to comply with the rules of the game. Unfortunately, we have seen many examples where countries reject to ratify international agreements. Of course, we can discuss whether trade measures should be enforced against those countries. We have to recognise, however, that trade measures are rarely the first-best policy for addressing the environmental or social problems. Here, the WTO could serve as an example. Why not combine individual negotiations in each forum and negotiate package deals as a single undertaking. Countries will then not be able to pick and chose but will ratify all agreements if they consider them beneficial overall.
Second, what if one institution cannot deliver on a given subject. Should the trade liberalisation in the WTO then be postponed until the other organisation has put its rules in place? Here I have no easy answer but I would suggest that the trade liberalisation will increase the pressure for the other institution to tackle the policy failure.
Third, how do we deal with conflicting requirements of international rules? This issue can be solved by addressing the relationship between the different agreements. For example the WTO-negotiators are asked to address the relationship between existing WTO rules and specific trade obligations set out in MEAs.
To summarise, ladies and gentlemen, European business considers that the international institutional architecture can and should be used to combine trade liberalisation with positive rule-making to arrive at sustainable solutions.
If you allow me to take off my hat as chairman of the UNICE working group on trade and environment and to make a personal remark I would also like to put forward the idea to give "More Power to the WTO"!
The WTO is not any longer a pure trade agreement. Given the fact that trade has already been liberalised to a large extent, and that the WTO has already engaged in, what I would call, "positive rule making”, then I would suggest that to use the WTO as a forum where to address these policy failures at least in those cases where the trade liberalisation and the policy failures are closely linked.
Compared to other international fora, the WTO offers considerable advantages in global governance: Package deals can be struck to break negotiating deadlocks; and disputes will be settled effectively.
So, why not negotiate a side-agreement within the context of the WTO?
I do not want to suggest here that the WTO now becomes the World Government which regulates every environmental, social or developmental issue. As I said other international institutions can and should do the job. Yet where the issue is closely linked to trade we should also consider rule-making at WTO- level.
I can give you an example where policy failures are already part of the WTO-negotiations: fishery subsidies. We are all aware that a reduction in fishery subsidies would reduce overcapitalisation in the industry and reduce overfishing. And we all know how politically difficult it is to find sustainable solutions to this issue. If the DDA undertakes to negotiate one area of policy failures I frankly do not see any reason why the WTO should not address other related policy areas as well.
I have to admit that I find most of the objections which have been raised against the introduction of positive obligations into the WTO not very convincing. I do not think that we would overburden the organisation: the organisation will be as good or as bad as we allow it to be. I do not believe that we will dilute the primary mission of WTO, which is to liberalise trade. The primary mission of the WTO is to liberalise trade in a sustainable manner. It therefore needs to address the linkage issues.
So if trade liberalisation is economically useful overall but cannot stand alone any longer, then we should reflect on whether to give this institution a new role. Otherwise, I see the danger that we will stop to liberalise trade altogether. And the maintenance of the status quo, ladies and gentlemen, is, frankly speaking, not sustainable either! In a limited number of cases I would therefore opt for positive rule-making in the WTO beyond its present scope.
We have to be aware however that the WTO only provides for opportunities it does not give any guarantees. Even if we are able to address the policy failures there will be winners and losers but that is what competition is all about.
Robert Madelin, DG Trade, European Commission
Sustainability Assessments of Trade Policy
SIA is:
❑ a tool for embedding “trade policy” in a broader and coherent set of EU policies;
❑ a process for engaging all interested parties in the development of that policy.
• It reflects, in both respects, the Commission’s realisation, since 1998 that the content of trade policy, and the way trade policy is made, had to be modernised.
• EU activities sit in a global context that lends comfort to EU’s pioneering activities:
❑ UNEP is leading on this;
❑ Doha gives visibility to impact assessment as part of the WTO process;
❑ WSSD – we hope – will give further endorsement.
• Building an SIA:
If SIA is to affect trade policy, several conditions have to be fulfilled:
❑ Country coverage: - the world
❑ Scenarios: not too many, and only politically realistic
❑ Consultation and transparency
❑ Clear process for debate on each SIA and for institutions (EP, Council, Commission) to react.
• Big challenges:
❑ Ownership: negotiators, constituencies, institutions all have to invest time
and effort in order to influence the process. All constituencies have to get involved now.
❑ Data: new data is needed, and should be shaped with SIA in mind.
❑ Resources: for the Commission, for other countries, for all constituencies… This activity does not come cheap.
Bernard Kuiten WTO
WWF/EP Seminar on Sustainability Assessments of EU Trade Policy
• General WTO Secretariat disclaimer: not in a position to provide official comments/support to individual country position or ideas. Will nevertheless try to be objective, and where necessary critical, on a personal basis only
• Asked to comment on the role of Sustainability Assessments as a tool in international trade negotiations. How much environmental assessment is built in the Doha Declaration. What can or is the WTO doing to promote SA among its Members. What role can the CTE and CTD play in environmental and sustainable assessment?
• Various questions which I could (and probably should) pass on to the various WTO Member representatives present here if I was to be the faceless and opinion-less bureaucrat. But that would be to easy.
• Highlight the importance of putting SAs in the right (negotiating) context. Most if not all parties, whether countries, NGOs, parliamentarians and academics seem to agree on the importance of SA as a tool to determine the sustainability of policies, be it trade, economy or otherwise. But the question remains how and where this tool should become operational. And possibly, at what costs? Limit myself to the WTO context: Are SAs to become a regular and in-built exercise in trade policy-making and negotiations? Or will they be used as a reference only and become the territory of heated debates about their application in trade policies (as seem to be the case already, looking at WWF c.s. statement) ? In other words, will SAs eventually appear and remain on WTO members' negotiating agendas?
• First look at the basis: the Doha Ministerial Declaration. It has the right ingredients, subject of course to readers' interpretation ( which is not uncommon for any WTO agreement …). Para 6 strongly reaffirms Members' commitment to the objective of sustainable development but "only" takes note of Member's efforts to conduct national environmental assessments of trade policies on a voluntary basis. Para 33 encourage to share expertise and experience with Members wishing to perform environmental reviews at the national level. Para 33 can therefore be considered as an enforcement of the latter part of the para 6 quote. But the nature of the exercise remains voluntary. No reference to harmonization, specific WTO interpretations or even negotiations.
• The words "voluntary" and "national level" seem crucial. Important to know which countries are adopting and applying SAs. So far, the official country record is limited: EU, Canada, the US. At IGO level its UNEP, UNCTAD and OECD. Not enough one would say? Or does it reflect the sustainable performance of these countries? What do we know about world-wide performance
• One indicator is Environmental Sustainability Index. Not a real expert so don't know whether it is the right index or not. But its ranking is very interesting. Of 50 best scores, 33 are developing or transition economies! Some of the G8 countries are not often among the best 50. Who needs SAs the most?
• The need for SAs. The EU seems to realise that they need them (look at the resources they spend). But a country's need is determined by a mix of national requirements, legal and economic capacities, level of development, expertise and local situations. Certain WTO members therefore express fear for harmonised and one-size fits-all SA procedures.
• In this respect, countries with a high(er) degree of experience in SA development and application play a crucial role in positioning WTO's role (if there is one!) in developing SA in trade policies. They will have to find a careful balance between promoting the (undeniable) importance of SA in trade policy determination, and countries individual needs, demands and possibilities in this respect. This seems to plea for a tailor-made, case-by-case methodology rather than a harmonised one, but I leave it to others to draw such conclusions.
• The WTO's role in this respect seems twofold: (1) a forum for experience sharing, as highlighted in the Doha Declaration (2) based upon demand, provide complementary technical assistance only, as the conduct SA itself is not mandated by WTO rules.
• To conclude: The Doha Declarations is sufficiently balanced to allow SAs to become a more important national policy tool, without making it mandatory or obligatory. While only a few members have adopted SA as an independent tool for the moment, many members seem to underline the importance of sustainable performance. We will hopefully see their determination during the WSSD in Johannesburg. The WTO's role is determined by the course of its members: concretely, the CTE is mandated to report on technical assistance and capacity building as well as environmental reviews undertaken at the national level. Together with the general dedication of WTO members to enhance the sustainability of trade policy, this seems a recipe for success. Just don't allow the subject to become another politicised one in the CTE: members, including their parliamentarians, NGOs and academics share a responsibility here.
Caroline Lucas MEP
Changing the Balance of Trade
A Seminar on Sustainability Assessments of EU Trade Policy
Delivering sustainable trade: SIA in EU trade policy
Introduction
During the course of today and yesterday you've heard a lot about SIAs, had illustrations of various case studies and examples as well as listened to the views from several sectors of society. We probably all agree that SIAs are vitally important if trading relations and agreements are to be truly sustainable.
But we've also heard some criticisms of some fundamental flaws in the SIAs themselves as well as the inadequate way in which they are being implemented. At heart, it can never be enough to bolt on a sustainability assessment here and there. What is also needed is a fundamental overhaul of the EU trade policy making process in order to ensure transparency and accountability in EU trade policy in general, and SIAs in particular. SIAs need to be an integral part of the whole process, we want to see commitment from the Commission to have truly sustainable trade policies that are assessed at all stages of the policy process, not just after the agreement has already been made, and we want to see transparent and democratic consultation and implementation processes for SIAs and for the wider trade policy making process.
SIAs in theory and practice
Will be brief on this, as no doubt these issues have been raised throughout the conference. SIAs are vital if we are to have a truly sustainable multilateral trading system. Yet the SIAs as proposed by the Commission suffer from two short-comings - one theoretical, the other practical.
Theoretically, they have been constructed in a way which takes trade liberalisation for granted - as the Commission puts it itself -
"The objective of an SIA is not to assess the desirability of further trade liberalisation overall - (the tool is not able to tackle so broad a strategic question) but rather
• to provide elements of information on the possible range of impacts, thus making it possible to ensure the final decisions are the optimal ones,
• to accompany and optimise their implementation, which is often essential for the sustainability of agreements."
Therefore, despite the Commission's commitment to sustainable development in theory, its commitment to trade liberalisation comes first. As always, the impacts on people and planet are only assessed after the course of trade liberalisation has been struck. In this light, sustainability impact assessments are like re-arranging deck chairs on the Titanic, as the famous metaphor goes. However, a true sustainability impact assessment should allow, in theory, for a change of course, if the course in question has negative social and/or environmental impacts. We must break out of the mantra that trade liberalisation comes above all else, and we must once and for all bury the assertion that trade liberalisation is a necessary and inherent part of sustainable development, that it is the engine of growth, without which society is incapable of functioning, and without which environmental devastation cannot be countered. This is not to say that trade liberalisation is necessarily bad, but that it cannot simply come first. It is time we put the economy back where it belongs: at the service of society - and not the other way round. Or, to recall the famous Brundtland definition - which the Commission itself subscribes to - at the service of meeting today's societies needs without impairing future societies' ability to meet their own needs.
Apart from theoretical deficiencies, the Commission's commitment to SIAs seems to be somewhat hesitant in practice. The proposals for SIA were first made in 1999 and DG Trade agreed to commit 10 % of its budget to conduct SIAs over the next three years. SIAs were then put forward as a concrete action plan at the Gothenburg "sustainability" summit in June 2001. A working paper was adopted at the Barcelona Council meeting in March 2002. And so far, all we have to show for it is a first mid-term review of the EU-Chile agreement.
Back in 1999 the Commission promised a similar study of the Euro-Med Free Trade area, but that has not yet begun. The Commission is currently in the process of commissioning assessments on the EU-ACP agreement, the EU- Gulf Co-operation Council and five WTO sectoral studies. It remains to be seen how these progress. After a slow beginning, however, things appear to be picking up rather too quickly.
For there are major question marks over the actual process and implementation of SIAs, which have come to light with regard to the Chile agreement. The key flaw in this case is a question of timing: The SIA was undertaken after the EU-Chile agreement had been signed, and at a stage when the agreement itself cannot be re-negotiated. This is not surprising, however, since it follows on quite logically from the methodology of trade liberalisation before all else. Sign the agreement, then look at whether or not the agreement is "sustainable." without questioning the agreement or the rationale itself, without assessing whether the agreement itself is contributing to sustainable development. Further, the Commission has contracted a consultant for four months to undertake the study, and it is doubtful whether this is sufficient time for such an assessment. Rather, it looks suspiciously like a case of trade agreement "greenwash." And finally, there are signs of "whitewash" as well, when at a recent meeting with civil society the Commission representative publicly told the consultants that the final report statistics on probable negative effects in employment terms, should best be left out of the final study.
This is not the way to go about doing an impact assessment. However, DG trade, even just last week at a meeting on the State of Play regarding the ACP-EU negotiations, again protested that a SIA could hardly be done before a negotiation is concluded. This is a misunderstanding of the nature of a SIA - they would do well to talk to their colleagues in DG environment about EIAs (environmental impact assessments). An impact assessment should not just be a corrective instrument, but should ensure that the agreement is sustainable so that it avoids negative outcomes in future. In fact, DG Trade on its website acknowledges that "precaution" is something that needs to be taken into account in trade policy. Further, the SIA must fit into the negotiations themselves, they must be done regularly at all stages of an agreement and must be the basis of any further developments of an agreement (all agreements have a built in clause for further development). A trade agreement should not be concluded, until the SIA has been made. And it flies in the face of the whole rationale of a sustainability impact assessment to doctor a final report in such a way that it leaves out information about unsustainable consequences. With the upcoming EPA agreements that are being negotiated with ACP countries the Commission could make a good start, by postponing the second stage of the negotiations until after the SIA has been concluded.
Apart from the timing, there is also a large question mark over the consultative process. Our colleagues in Chile tell us that no one on the ground has ever been consulted, neither parliamentarians, nor experts, nor the wider civil society. In fact, it appears, that this SIA is being carried out solely by the Commission, or rather in this case the Luxembourg-based consultants employed by the Commission. Again, this is no way to go about doing an impact assessment: if it is to produce a serious study, the Commission must work closely with the people on the ground, and the process must be transparent and democratic.
Transparency and democracy in trade policy
And it is here, that I come to my most critical point: the lack of transparency and democracy in the very EU trade policy process, including that of SIAs.
Although the European Parliament was informed about the methodology of SIAs back when the Commission pioneered the idea, MEPs have never been consulted about the form and content of concrete plans for SIAs.
Some of the more concrete details were only gleaned by chance out of parliamentary questions, in particular by Greens/EFA MEP Monica Frassoni and myself. Monica Frassoni wrote to the Commission in March this year. Through the response to her question, we learnt that the Parliament will be informed of the results of the study at the end of July, after the study has been concluded. In my question I asked whether the Commission was now going to undertake regular SIAs of the already agreed EU-Mexico agreement. The response from Commissioner Lamy was a vague, evasive answer that a side agreement on environment would soon be negotiated.
Like with SIAs, the mandate for the EPAs was given by the general Council in June, without the consultation of Parliament.
However, on the other hand, the Commission has been very "open and transparent" towards civil society with regard to SIAs, holding dialogues and inviting comments. While I whole-heartedly welcome such moves, this can never be a substitute for parliamentary scrutiny. Relying on a few questions by parliamentarians is an inadequate process. There is a great need for openness and transparency of the EU's trade policy making in general, in particular at the level of the 133 Committee, which still meets behind closed doors, despite huge parliamentary efforts to break open the doors, and to at least have observer status. If EU trade policy is every to be truly accountable, we will need a revision of the EC Treaty concerning the common commercial policy so as to guarantee full involvement of the European Parliament in this sphere, by providing for Parliament to be consulted on the negotiating mandates to be given to the Commission, opening up the so-called 133 Committee to Parliament’s representatives, and requiring Parliament’s assent to all trade agreements.
Conclusions
These are big questions that need to be resolved. In the meantime, however, how could the Parliament contribute to an effective mechanism for delivering SIAs?
A starting point would be to have some role in overseeing and monitoring the progress in implementing EU level mitigation and enhancement measures proposed by the SIAs - at present there is no system to ensure that these are adopted or followed through to completion, including if necessary adjustment of existing EU legislation, new policy recommendations or influencing of country and regional strategies. However, these are likely to be one of the most practical and valuable contributions of SIAs - especially if they are conducted in time to influence policy formulation at the outset. Part of these will of course be within the remit of Member States - it would be interesting to hear from the Commission how it proposes to ensure commitment and continuity in this regard.
In the longer term, there could be a Sustainable Development Committee along the lines of the UK's Environmental Audit Committee for the parliament charged with overseeing integration of sustainable development principles into EU policy to the point where it refused to consider proposals that are not accompanied by an SIA.
We must remember, that SIAs are not just needed in trade policy - but after the commitments made at Gothenburg and the launch of the sustainable development strategy all policies will be subjected to it.
In short, I entirely agree with the joint NGO statement on the SIAs of EU trade policy: they call for SIAs to begin at an early stage in order to inform the negotiating process; that SIAs should be fully integrated into the policy-making process; that SIAs should promote the overall coherence of the EU's external policies; that the involvement of stakeholders in the process is increased, especially the involvement of trading partners; and that the role of other institutions is expanded, particularly that of the European Parliament.
On the eve of Johannesburg Summit it is time that we stopped beating about the bush and turned the rhetoric of sustainable development into reality.
Mikel Insausti, WWF
Introduction
There are many good arguments of why conducting SA of trade policies is a sound idea. But I think the essence of all these arguments can be boiled down to one: "If you do not measure it, then it does not matter". Or to put it in a positive light: "If you want something to matter, you better measure it! "
With the sustainable development dimension of trade it happens pretty much the same: It does not tend to be measured or put into the equation, and therefore, it tends to be neglected quite easily by policy-makers and negotiators. For far too long, trade policy has been developed, and trade treaties signed, without much consideration given to their social, development and environmental consequences.
Conducting SAs of trade policy is step number one in beginning to reverse this situation. I say step number one because measuring the potential impacts of trade policies and agreements alone does not by itself guarantee that such impacts will be taken into consideration by trade negotiators and Ministers.
Effective mechanisms are therefore needed to feed the findings of SA to policy-makers and legislators, for them to make informed decisions that hopefully shift the balance of trade ― away from the current emphasis on liberalisation and de-regulation, and towards sustainable development. I will elaborate on this later on with regard to the current SA process in the EU.
So following these introductory comments, I have divided the rest of my presentation in two parts. In the first part I will make 2 propositions on how to go about the "measurement" part of SA. In other words, I will be talking about the methodological approaches and assumptions to capturing the linkages between the economic, development and environmental dimensions of trade.
In the second part I will make another 3 propositions on how to improve the chances that SAs actually influence trade policy decisions made in the European Union. I will refer in both cases to the current SIA process of the Commission, and suggest some options as to how it can be improved.
Measurement of Sustainability: Methodology
First proposition: SAs should build on the assumption that trade and trade liberalisation are not an end in itself, but a means to sustainable development.
To put it in other words, trade policy positions in the EU should to be defined according to how best they serve the objectives of sustainable economic development in Europe and beyond, poverty alleviation in the developing world, and environmental protection, whether it is local or global.
This proposition may seem quite evident, yet it has a critical importance in defining the kinds of outputs and scenarios we can expect from a SA.
Currently, the SIAs conducted by the European Commission explicitly exclude in their ToR the possibility of questioning the desirability of trade liberalisation. Instead, the Commission SIAs focus on identifying measures to mitigate the negative impacts of trade liberalisation or enhancing its positive effects.
The obvious question that springs up to mind is why to focus on mitigating negative development and environmental impacts that could have been avoided in the first place? Is this a sound approach to SA?
Obviously not, because it excludes looking into alternatives. These alternatives include for instance sequential approaches to liberalisation (that is, timing the trade liberalisation process according to the capacity of countries and regions to withstand the impacts unfolded by it); or in some cases not having liberalisation in certain sectors at all (for example on education and water).
So the key message here is that if SAs are restricted to dealing with the problems of liberalisation rather than exploring different options and questioning underlying models, they will fail to realise their full potential and close off alternative policy scenarios before they can be considered.
Second proposition: SAs should adopt a balanced analytical approach combining quantitative and qualitative techniques.
The combination of these techniques should produce meaningful analysis that address core sustainability issues (for instance the distributional effects of TL, its cumulative impacts on the environment and on poorest people, access to natural resources and others).
I emphasise this point because there is a danger of over-relying on quantitative techniques such as the economic modelling of trade liberalisation. This was the case with the Commission's SIA of major food crops ―which on the other hand had very little resources to extend the analysis beyond quantitative analysis.
A lesson that WWF has drawn from the food crops study is that to be effective, SIA should rely in part on localised empirical data and the participation of local stakeholders, including civil society, governments and affected communities, both in Europe and in other countries. The input of stakeholders can be obtained through a combination of partnerships, extensive participation and additional qualitative research such as surveys and interviews.
This is an area where NGOs in Europe can certainly help, providing contacts of our counterparts across the world. But it is also essential that contractors' carrying out the SIAs have well established partners outside Europe who can reach out to those with a stake on trade, or affected by it.
Let me now turn to the final part of my presentation. The question I will try to answer in three propositions is the following: How to ensure that the results of SIA effectively feed into policy-making and negotiating processes, so that after measuring the sustainability of trade, it actually matters when it comes to making decisions.
First proposition: Is critical that SAs begin early – even before negotiating positions are formulated. In fact, they should inform these positions.
SIAs should be ongoing, generating information on sustainability aspects of existing trade policies, identifying trends and their causes, and then feeding into the development of new policies. In effect, they should enable policy-makers to develop sustainable policies from the outset, rather than trying to find ways of improving bad policies. The later the start, the more restricted the scope of the assessment and its effectiveness.
The Commission’s SIAs have generally started too late. In most cases, negotiations on bilateral agreements have commenced before the related SIAs are sufficiently advanced. This means that many important decisions are being taken before the output of the respective SIAs can inform the relevant trade negotiators involved. In the case of the WTO SIA, more than a year was lost after Seattle as a result of the low priority given by the Commission to it. The case of the SIA of the Euro-Mediterranean Free Trade Zone is probably the worst case: The Commission promised to launch it in April 1999, at the Euro-Med Ministerial Conference in Stuttgart. We are still waiting……
Second proposition: Increasing stakeholder involvement is key to the SA process. As well as enhancing the sense of public ownership and trust in resulting policies, greater participation will unlock new sources of information for policy makers, and in a very cheap way.
The burden and responsibility to increase stakeholder participation is on everyone's shoulders:
- NGOs need to strengthen their own capacity to engage in the SIA process;
- the Commission must be more willing to engage its trading partners and local stakeholders;
- and many non-EU countries, still dismissive of SIAs, could be more proactive and grasp the opportunities SIA offer. SIA, for example, could show how unsustainable the CAP currently is, backing up their claims that it needs to be reformed.
In practice, these opportunities have not been maximised, to the detriment of stakeholders and policy-makers. The exclusion of non-EU actors makes it particularly difficult to build confidence in the SIA process, while also limiting opportunities to assess impacts occurring at the local level.
EU trading partners are interested in SIAs, but many are unaware of the EU programme on SIA and its aims. The Commission should put more effort into informing non-EU countries about its work in this area ― perhaps through a series of regional workshops — and raise the profile of the tool. It should explain how it proposes to use SIAs and what the implications are for its trading partners.
Consideration could also be given to conducting SIAs in partnership with trading partners and sharing the results. Trading partners and study countries could also be represented on SIA steering groups and should be fully informed of their progress. It would be interesting to hear the Ambassador’s views on this……
Third and last proposition: There is a need to bring SIAs closer to the policy-makers and involve all Community institutions: Commission, Parliament and Council.
Policy-makers and parliamentarians need to be closely engaged in SAs, ensuring that their needs are met and securing their ‘ownership’. The reality is that they are not sufficiently involved in the process. WWF welcomes the recent DG Trade initiative to train its officials on the use of SIA, and encourages the Commission to extend such training programmes both within DG Trade and in other Commission services.
But the reach of SIAs should extend well beyond the Commission. It is important that SIAs are ‘owned’ by all EU institutions and Member States if they really are to influence policy outcomes.
Possible options include:
• [Parliament] Expanding the role of the European Parliament – particularly in overseeing the SIA system and in increasing transparency. The Parliament secretariat could be charged with monitoring SIAs.
• [Council] The General Affairs and External Relations Committee of the Council, and the Article 113 Trade Committee, should be intimately involved in the SIA process. SIAs should inform all discussions, including at Ministers level, rather than being tagged on to the agenda as separate items.
• [Member Sates] Member State commitment is essential to the success of the SIA process since key decisions on trade policy are taken in capitals, often before discussions reach the 133 Trade Committee. Member States should become more involved in the SIA process, perhaps through a system of contact points within the relevant trade or foreign ministries.
Final remarks
Since the Commission began carrying out SIAs in 1999, some progress has been made on the methodologies, although there are fundamental problems that need to be corrected. There are growing concerns, however, that the SIA tool is becoming a cosmetic exercise to defend EU trade positions, rather than a real attempt to formulate sustainable trade policies and mitigate the negative impacts of trade agreements.
Real improvements are needed on the use of SIA by the Commission. But ultimately, such improvements will depend on whether there is a belief among negotiators that SIAs are of benefit to all concerned, and not just a way of dealing with social and environmental ‘side-effects’. Without this, SIAs may have minimal effect on decisions and will run the risk of becoming little more than an expensive, bureaucratic PR exercise.
These issues must be addressed and rectified before SIAs can realise their full potential. It is urgent that the Commission develop the proper infrastructure to facilitate the effective use of SIAs, and to ensure the integration of SIA results into the policy-making machinery.
Joint NGO Statement on Sustainability Impact Assessments
of EU Trade Policy
Back in 1998, the European Commission announced its intention to carry out a Sustainability Impact Assessments (SIA) of the WTO negotiations. Many NGOs welcomed that commitment as a necessary first step to ensure that the EU’s negotiating position at the WTO and in bilateral trade agreements was conducive to sustainable development, while enhancing transparency and accountability in EU trade policy-making. At last year's European Council in Gothenburg, the EU commitment to SIA was strengthened further, as European leaders agreed that all major policy proposals in the EU would need to be subject to SIA before being adopted.
Since 1999, the Commission has embarked on an ambitious programme of SIA, spanning WTO negotiations and its major bilateral trade negotiations, which will be reviewed over the coming months and years. However, despite the resources being poured into the SIA programme by the Commission (currently amounting to 10% of DG Trade's total budget) and the reports released so far, there is little evidence that SIAs are influencing EU negotiating positions at the WTO or in bilateral agreements. There is no evidence either of SIA leading to the formulation of trade-related policies and measures that could help to mitigate the negative impacts of trade liberalisation, or to spread its positive effects more equitably and sustainable.
This lack of policy impact of SIA in influencing the formulation of trade policy positions – including their coverage, timing and sequencing – and related policy areas –development, environment, social, health, consumer protection, animal welfare, etc. – in the Commission and more widely in the EU undermines the very purpose of conducting SIAs (i.e. formulating more sustainable EU trade policy) and puts into question the Commission's true commitment to sustainable trade. Neither does the lacklustre performance on SIA so far inspire confidence that new items where impact assessments are needed (like GATS) will be assessed properly.
The undersigned NGOs believe that SIAs will only be successful in informing the formulation of more sustainable trade policies if high political will and buy-in exists from top EU decision-makers, both in Community institutions and in member states. Procedural changes are also needed to ensure that SIAs inform the decision-making process, including at Council level, and allow the full involvement of stake-holders throughout the negotiations. For SIAs to serve their purpose they must be at the heart of the policy-making process, otherwise they become little more than a bureaucratic exercise in greenwash.
With these preliminary comments in mind, the undersigned NGOs call on the Commission, the European Parliament, Council and Member States to take the following actions:
1) SIA should begin at an early stage in order to inform negotiating positions
It is critical that SIAs begin early, even before negotiating positions are formulated. Indeed they should inform these positions. So far, SIAs have only started after negotiations on bilateral agreements have commenced – and sometimes even after negotiations have concluded. This not only prevents them from influencing negotiating positions, but because SIAs are time consuming, many important decisions will have been taken before their output inform the negotiators involved. For example, the EU-Chile SIA was only launched in March 2002 just before the agreement was signed, and the political and co-operation chapters of the EU-Mercosur agreement were almost completed by the time the SIA commenced. Meanwhile, there has been no visible movement on the SIA of the Euro-Mediterranean Free Trade Zone agreement, despite numerous promises going back to 1999.
The EU has an opportunity to address this failing in the negotiations on Economic Partnership Agreements (EPAs) with ACP countries. It is essential that the second stage of negotiations – the substantive negotiations with specific sub-regions – do not commence until the first set of conclusions of the SIA are available. Once this stage of negotiations begins it will be more difficult to change the direction of the negotiations and the SIA will be limited to proposing measures to mitigate the impacts of the agreements.
2) SIA should be fully integrated into the policy-making process
SIAs are being conducted at arms length from policy-making, and policy makers are not sufficiently involved in the SIA process. There must be high-level commitment to, and involvement in, the SIA process. Unless Commissioners, senior officials in the Commission, Member State Ministers, and other senior personnel are committed to and involved in the process, SIA will remain at the periphery of policy-making and rarely go beyond the officials managing the consultants who conduct the research.
At the moment, policy-makers and legislators have a very limited exposure to, and input into, the SIA process. This is especially the case when it comes to informing Council decisions, including those at Ministerial level. The Commission should also be more involved in the day-to-day management of the SIAs and negotiators should be kept close to the procedures.
This problem is exacerbated by the rigid and unresponsive structure of SIAs – they need to be flexible and dynamic to be able to cope with the demands of trade negotiators. The current approach where the contractors report back on pre-ordained timescales is not flexible and contrasts with the rapid and continuous process of liberalisation with new issues continuously being introduced into negotiating agendas.
3) Enhance policy coherence and inter-service co-ordination
SIA should promote the overall coherence of the EU’s external objectives in the fields of trade, poverty alleviation, human rights and environmental protection. SIA is a cross-cutting tool which has implications for all areas of EU policy. In this context, the results of these assessments should be taken into account in the formulation of the EU negotiating position at international and inter-regional fora, and should highlight the interests of developing countries in the sectors which are important for their national development process and for the self-sufficiency of their population, as well the economic and social rights of women in developing countries and in Europe.
The effective delivery of mitigation and enhancement measures will require a close degree of co-operation between DG Trade and other DGs (such as DG Development, DG Environment, DG Relex, DG Agriculture, etc.) Those involved in the on-the-ground delivery of EU policies should be closely involved in the SIA process from setting the terms of reference through to the formulation of mitigation and enhancement measures.
SIAs should be able to bring to the fore cross cutting issues including the distributional impacts of trade not illuminated by conventional policy analysis. However, a major failing of the studies so far is their neglect of gender issues. An analysis of the trade negotiation from a gender perspective would permit the anticipation of the differentiated effect and impacts of trade liberalisation by gender and the identification of sectors that represent opportunities for women.
4) Increase stakeholder involvement in the process
Opportunities for stakeholder involvement are limited and despite the Commission’s efforts at consultation, stakeholders have only had a limited input into the studies so far. The current reporting structure gives civil society little opportunity to influence the direction of the studies and most key decisions are made before the studies are presented.
In particular, the involvement of the EU's trading partners in the exercise has been virtually non-existent, despite the fact that one of the studies specifically focussed on the agricultural sectors of eight non-EU states. SIA should not only inform EU negotiating positions, but also inform the negotiations with third countries and regions. It therefore becomes essential that the Commission involves its trading partners on the SIA process at an early stage, and encourages and supports them to carry out national SIA of the agreements under negotiation. Consideration should be given to conducting SIAs in partnership with trading partners so that they can help inform policy development by these countries. In any event, it is essential that the results of SIAs be available to all parties including non-EU negotiators.
The exclusion of civil society and governments from non-EU countries makes it particularly difficult to assess the impacts of trade policies at a local level. SIAs are a starting point for an on-going process of consultation to allow informed responses from national and regional stakeholders. Only through an open and well structured consultation process can SIAs hope to bridge the gap between macro policy formulation and micro-level impacts. Greater involvement of women’s organisations, for example, would be an important stepping stone to greater gender integration.
5) Expand the roles of other EU institutions
As things stand, SIA is a Commission-led and Commission-focused exercise. While the Commission plays a key role in the formulation of EU trade policy, SIA should also inform other EU institutions and Member States. Therefore, a focus in the Commission only can be considered as a weakness. It reduces the opportunity for co-ordinating EU policies more widely to deliver more sustainable outcomes; hinders the integration of SIA into policy-making; makes it more difficult to deliver SIA recommendations; and reduces transparency. SIA should inform all EU institutions, and Member States should be intimately involved in the exercise.
• European Parliament: There is a great deal of scope for an expanded role for the European Parliament – particularly in providing oversight of SIAs and increasing transparency. The Commission should report regularly to Parliament and whenever there is a discussion with Parliament on Bilateral trade agreements or WTO negotiations – both in Committee and Plenary – the results of the relevant SIA should be presented along with an explanation how these have informed negotiations. The Parliament Secretariat should be charged with monitoring the progress of SIAs and should have the resources to do so. The Parliament should take on the role of overseeing the conduct, quality and implementation of SIAs.
• Council: The General Affairs Council, being responsible for the co-ordination of EU policies, should be intimately involved in the SIA process. There should be a formal organising structure in the GAC and high-level commitment to the process. SIAs should be mainstreamed into the discussions of the 133 Committee, not just tagged on to the end of the agenda, and Trade Ministers in the Council should be regularly briefed by SIA on trade policy issues addressed in their meetings. When a trade issue is being discussed, Ministers and officials should be provided with the relevant SIA findings to aid their deliberations.
• Member States: Member States should play a greater role in the elaboration of SIA. Key decisions on trade policy are made in Capitals before they even reach the 133 Committee in the Council. More effort should be made to inform Member States of SIA findings, and they should give SIA higher political priority and become more involved in the review process. There should be designated contact points within different Ministries in Member States responsible for SIAs, and for informing civil society at the national level.
• Transparency: Trade policy making is opaque – the agendas and minutes of the meetings of the 133 Committee are not published and as long as these meetings are closed the way that SIAs inform trade policy will remain hidden. It is unclear how SIAs are influencing trade policy. Whenever the Commission reports on SIAs to stakeholders and the Parliament, it should outline how the findings of SIAs are influencing policy formulation and negotiations.
The undersigned NGOs
Signatories:
APRODEV
Begegnungszentrum fuer Aktive Gewaltlosigkeit
Berne Declaration
Campagna per la Riforma della Banca Mondiale
Center for International Environmental Law
Center for Environmental Public Advocacy
Eurostep
Fern
Friends of the Earth Europe
Green Alternative
ICDA
International Confederation of Free Trade Unions (ICFTU)
K.U.L.U.-Women and Development
Solidar
Solidaridad Internacional
Weltladen-Dachverband e.V.
Network Women in Development Europe (WIDE)
Werkgroep Globalisering DD
World Development Movement
WWF European Policy Office
Internet Resources
The following documents are available on the Balanced Trade website
balancedtrade
• WWF briefing paper: Balanced Process, Balanced Results: Sustainability Assessments and Trade
• WWF briefing paper: Balanced Process, Balanced Results: How to get there? Critical elements for sustainability assessments
• WWF briefing paper: An effective multistakeholder process for sustainability assessment – critical elements
• WWF briefing paper: Changing the Balance of Trade – Sustainability Assessment of EU trade policies
***
-----------------------
[1] Paragraph 6 of the Doha Ministerial Declaration states: “…We take note of the efforts by members to conduct national environmental assessments of trade policies on a voluntary basis.” And paragraph 33 states “…We also encourage that expertise and experience be shared with members wishing to perform environmental reviews at the national level.”
[2] Maltais A, Nilsson M, Persson A. Sustainability Impact Assessment of WTO negotiations in the major food crops sector - Final Report. Stockholm Environment Institute, 2002
[3] WWF, FFLA. Proceedings of the international experst meeting on sustainability assessment of trade liberalisation, 6-8 March 2000
................
................
In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.
To fulfill the demand for quickly locating and searching documents.
It is intelligent file search solution for home and business.
Related searches
- changing the school system essay
- types of trade school programs
- list of trade school careers
- balance of sodium and potassium
- list of trade associations
- advantage and disadvantages of trade unions
- changing the limits of integration
- advantages of trade unions
- disadvantage of trade union
- advantage of trade union
- balance of nature company
- advantages of trade credit