Page 1 

 

 Page 2 

|

 Page 3 

|

 Page 4 

|

 Page 5 

 

IWMC - World Conservation Trust
MAINPAGE

SUSTAINABLE USE

WTO and its Influence on Sustainable Use
Dr Jon Hutton
(biography)
The Africa Resources Trust


The WTO promotes trade liberalization while CITES uses trade measures in its attempts to protect wild species. So there is good reason for thinking that the two may conflict. To date, no State has attempted to take formal proceedings against CITES measures on the grounds that they conflict with WTO rules. However, fear that this may happen is driving a large section of the environmental community to move preemptively to change the WTO so that CITES issues are exempt from its processes. Starting from a somewhat different perspective, that of Community groups in southern Africa, this paper analyses the appropriate relationship between the WTO and Multilateral Environmental Agreements (MEAs) such as CITES.

Trade Measures for "Environmental Protection"

There are two sorts of trade restrictions which are applied in the name of 'environmental protection': we term these 'unilateral' or 'pursuant' measures. In simple terms, unilateral restrictions are unashamedly taken to satisfy a domestic agenda while pursuant measures are so named because they are applied pursuant to a multilateral environmental agreement. Thus southern African countries and the USA, for example, are united in their refusal to accept commercial imports of Appendix-I CITES species.

a) Unilateral measures

Unilaterally-imposed trade restrictions have always been a major tool to effect change in policy and some observers would claim that there cannot be multilateralism without unilateralism because in a world where different members of the international community hold alternative views, unilateral measures, power-based measures are necessary to bring all parties to the negotiating table. It is, for example, often stated that slavery only came to an end because of unilateral action. The WTO, however, is designed to turn a power-based system to one based on rules in which unilateralism is unwelcome - and this is clearly to the benefit of the developing world.

Unilateral trade restrictions fall into one of three categories (Table 1). They may be direct restrictions on trade (such as the U.S. ban on harp seal products). In this case they run counter to Article XI unless they meet the terms of the Article XX exemptions. They may relate to a characteristic of the product, such as its packaging, which is termed a product standard. If the restrictions discriminate against other producers then they are counter to Article III. Even where they are not discriminatory, agreements such as that on Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT) may make them WTO illegal. Finally, restrictions might be introduced, not because of a characteristic of the product, but because of the way it was produced. This is termed a restriction related to production and process method (PPM) standards. The majority of objections to imports on environmental and animal welfare grounds are to do with the way the item is produced.

Why would any country want to influence the process methods in another? In general, the reasons are either environmental (in broad terms) or economic. In the U.S. Shrimp-Turtle case, the U.S. Government was clearly influenced by both considerations. It wanted to 'save' turtles, but it also wanted other fishing nations to introduce the same fishing technology so that its own fishermen were not put at an economic disadvantage.

  

Back to Top  |  Return to Issues Index  | BackNext Page


Go to - Mainpage IWMC World Conservation Trust