introduction
ronnie hall, friends of the earth
england, wales and northern ireland
“Prudence must be shown in the
management of all living species and
natural resources, in accordance with the
precepts of sustainable development. Only
in this way can the immeasurable riches
provided to us by nature be preserved and
passed on to our descendants. The current
unsustainable patterns of production and
consumption must be changed in the interest
of our future welfare and that of our
descendants.”
United Nations
Millennium Declaration, 2000.
|
The Millennium Ecosystem
Assessment recognizes that “the
degradation of ecosystem services is
harming many of the world's poorest
people and is sometimes the principal
factor causing poverty.”
“The Wealth of the Poor: Managing
Ecosystems to Fight Poverty”, a
recent report from the World
Resources Institute, the World Bank,
the United Nations Environment
Program and the United Nations
Development Program, also argues that
natural resources represent a route
out of poverty for the impoverished:
“Three-fourths of them live in rural
areas; their environment is all they
can depend on. Environmental
resources are absolutely essential,
rather than incidental, if we are to
have any hope of meeting our goals of
poverty reduction.”
|
just more pretty words?
Have any World Trade Organization (WTO)
negotiators read these reports? One could
be forgiven for assuming they have not. The
WTO's current trade negotiations include
proposals to completely liberalize markets
in forest products, fish and fish products,
gems and precious metals, primary aluminum,
and oil, with barely a mention of the
potential and possibly widespread
environmental and social impacts that this
could have. Markets in energy exploration
and distribution, water extraction and
distribution, and the management of natural
parks (including in biodiversity hotspots)
are all also on the table, as are
inconvenient environmental and health and
safety standards and the fate of critical
multilateral environmental agreements. The
WTO's existing Trade Related aspects of
Intellectual Property Rights agreement
(TRIPs) is preventing people's access to
and use of the natural resources on which
they have traditionally depended.
The livelihoods of literally millions of
people are at stake. Women are especially
vulnerable since they rely more heavily on
access to natural resources and land for
food, medicines and fuel for their
families, and are responsible for resource
management and food production in many
cultures.
unfair trade harms small farmers
Current trade rules and negotiations are
generating increasingly inequitable terms
of trade for small farmers worldwide,
especially in developing countries where up
to half the population may be engaged in
agriculture. These rules are forcing down
farm-gate prices (although in-store prices
often stay just the same), whilst allowing
industrialized countries to continue to
subsidize their products and dump them in
southern markets, undercutting local
producers. Increasing agricultural exports
are also worsening desertification, which
has long been recognized as a major
environmental problem, with adverse impacts
on the livelihoods of people in affected
areas around the world.
fish and forests suffer from tariff
reductions
Fisheries and forests also provide
livelihoods and essential nutrition and
medicines for millions across the world.
Ninety percent of fishers worldwide –
nearly 40 million people – are employed in
small-scale artisanal fishing, and these
men and women are overwhelmingly poor. A
further 13 million areemployed in the
formal forestry sector, and 350 million
rely almost entirely on forests for their
livelihoods and income (for collecting
fuelwood, medicinal plants, and food, for
example). WTO proposals to fully eliminate
tariffs in both of these sectors could have
extremely serious consequences for these
people, including loss of access to and
destruction of the natural resources on
which they traditionally depend.
The tariff reductions currently proposed
would increase incentives to fish
internationally, especially for large
commercial trawlers, fuelling the continued
exploitation of an already seriously
depleted resource. Local fishers and poor
fishing communities would increasingly
suffer the impact of dying seas, as large
commercial fleets take many of the highest
quality fish. There is also a risk of cheap
fish imports being dumped in coastal
nations with strong domestic markets,
making it impossible for fishers to sell
their catch locally. Similarly, in the
forest sector, an impact assessment
prepared for the European Commission states
that developing countries with forest
industries protected by high tariffs could
“incur considerable environmental and
social costs due to downsizing of the
industrial capacity and closing some
industries entirely.”
diverting water to the wealthy
Regional and bilateral trade agreements
are even worse than the WTO. New agreements
in Central and Latin America, for example,
are opening up underground water systems to
powerful foreign bottled water and beverage
companies. This will in all likelihood
reduce local peoples' access to these
important water resources. Overall, 70% of
the world's water is now used for
irrigation (and 60% of that is wasted), 22%
is used by industry and just 8% remains for
human consumption. Contrast this with the
fact that one billion people – one in every
six people on the planet – lack access to
safe drinking water, and 2.4 billion still
have no toilets or other forms of improved
sanitation. trade and climate, a dangerous
mix Furthermore, climate change, one of the
most serious environmental threats facing
the world today, could be worsened by
current trade liberalization negotiations.
Trade agreements and institutions such as
the WTO have the very real potential to
undermine both national and international
action to address climate change through
powerful mechanisms to restrict even those
government actions legitimately designed to
limit climate emissions. At a national
level, trade agreements could limit the
policy space governments have to reduce
national greenhouse gas emissions. For
example, trade rules could limit the use of
a host of policies designed to promote
sustainable domestic industries. Trade
agreements could also force governments to
abandon laws or regulations designed to
reduce dependence on fossil fuels.
International trade agreements, including
the WTO, could also take precedence in
disputes with the Kyoto Climate Protocol,
and define how emissions trading schemes
operate.
but another world is possible
We do not have to continue down this
road. Some far-sighted joined-up thinking
could go a long way in reversing current
trends, if only trade negotiators and their
governments could finally be persuaded to
think outside of the ‘trade negotiations'
box.
International trade needs to be
recognized for what it is: a means to an
end. A coherent system of global governance
in which trade regulation was firmly
embedded in an improved UN system could
significantly improve coordination and help
to stop trade negotiations from undermining
efforts to eradicate poverty, protect
biodiversity, prevent climate change and
ensure food sovereignty, at both the
national and international level.
Importantly, the myth of unfettered free
trade as a solution to poverty needs to be
exploded.
Recognition of the role that our natural
heritage plays in poverty eradication must
be extended from the United Nations to the
WTO. Governments need to stop and review
the real impacts that the Doha Work Program
could have on the world's most impoverished
people and the environment upon which we
all depend. We cannot continue to work
towards the Millennium Development Goals on
the one hand while undoing all efforts
through the WTO and other free trade
agreements with the other hand.
