Bridges Trade BioRes • Volume 3 • Number 21 • 28th November 2003

THE AMERICAS: “LITE” ON SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT?

Do More

Subscribe to the BioRes

* Required Field

Email Address: *

Country: *
Albania Algeria American Samoa Andorra Angola Anguilla Antarctica Antigua And Barbuda Argentina Armenia Aruba Australia Austria Azerbaijan Bahamas, The Bahrain Bangladesh Barbados Belarus Belgium Belize Benin Bermuda Bhutan Bolivia Bosnia and Herzegovina Botswana Bouvet Island Brazil British Indian Ocean Territory Brunei Bulgaria Burkina Faso Burundi Cambodia Cameroon Canada Cape Verde Cayman Islands Central African Republic Chad Chile China Christmas Island Cocos (Keeling) Islands Colombia Comoros Congo Congo, Democractic Republic of the Cook Islands Costa Rica Cote D'Ivoire (Ivory Coast) Croatia (Hrvatska) Cuba Cyprus Czech Republic Denmark Djibouti Dominica Dominican Republic East Timor Ecuador Egypt El Salvador Equatorial Guinea Eritrea Estonia Ethiopia Falkland Islands (Islas Malvinas) Faroe Islands Fiji Islands Finland France French Guiana French Polynesia French Southern Territories Gabon Gambia, The Georgia Germany Ghana Gibraltar Greece Greenland Grenada Guadeloupe Guam Guatemala Guinea Guinea-Bissau Guyana Haiti Heard and McDonald Islands Honduras Hong Kong S.A.R. Hungary Iceland India Indonesia Iran Iraq Ireland Israel Italy Jamaica Japan Jordan Kazakhstan Kenya Kiribati Korea Korea, North Kuwait Kyrgyzstan Laos Latvia Lebanon Lesotho Liberia Libya Liechtenstein Lithuania Luxembourg Macau S.A.R. Macedonia, Former Yugoslav Republic of Madagascar Malawi Malaysia Maldives Mali Malta Marshall Islands Martinique Mauritania Mauritius Mayotte Mexico Micronesia Moldova Monaco Mongolia Montserrat Morocco Mozambique Myanmar Namibia Nauru Nepal Netherlands Antilles Netherlands, The New Caledonia New Zealand Nicaragua Niger Nigeria Niue Norfolk Island Northern Mariana Islands Norway Oman Pakistan Palau Panama Papua new Guinea Paraguay Peru Philippines Pitcairn Island Poland Portugal Puerto Rico Qatar Reunion Romania Russia Rwanda Saint Helena Saint Kitts And Nevis Saint Lucia Saint Pierre and Miquelon Saint Vincent And The Grenadines Samoa San Marino Sao Tome and Principe Saudi Arabia Senegal Seychelles Sierra Leone Singapore Slovakia Slovenia Solomon Islands Somalia South Africa South Georgia And The South Sandwich Islands Spain Sri Lanka Sudan Suriname Svalbard And Jan Mayen Islands Swaziland Sweden Switzerland Syria Taiwan Tajikistan Tanzania Thailand Togo Tokelau Tonga Trinidad And Tobago Tunisia Turkey Turkmenistan Turks And Caicos Islands Tuvalu Uganda Ukraine United Arab Emirates United Kingdom United States United States Minor Outlying Islands Uruguay Uzbekistan Vanuatu Vatican City State (Holy See) Venezuela Vietnam Virgin Islands (British) Virgin Islands (US) Wallis And Futuna Islands Yemen Yugoslavia Zambia Zimbabwe

Employment Sector (Academia, Govt., Private Sector, NGO, IGO): *

First Name:

Last Name:

Organisation:

Enter the letters shown above:*

Download this issue

See also

THE AMERICAS: “LITE” ON SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT?

The eighth meeting of American Trade Ministers to continue negotiations on the Free Trade Agreement of the Americas (FTAA) in Miami (17-18 November) ended one-day early when Ministers agreed on the final ministerial declaration after just a few hours of negotiation. Environment hardly features in the Declaration despite concerns raised, in particular by environmental groups regarding the potential environmental effects of the agreement. Civil society groups were active and visible at the Miami meeting and forwarded recommendations to Ministers on several issues, including intellectual property rights and biodiversity.

The negotiations on the FTAA, which includes all countries of the Americas except for Cuba, have been set to end in January 2005. Ministers in Miami were expected to settle some of the major outstanding issues in particular on agriculture, intellectual property rights and investment. However, the final declaration only notes that the FTAA will include measures in each negotiating area, but does not set out the specific commitment levels. Several sources described the Declaration as an excuse for not confronting the real problems in the negotiations, instead leaving the job to the Trade Negotiations Committee (TNC), which will meet in February 2004. The main message of the Ministerial Declaration is that the FTAA provides each country with flexibility on its level of commitment according to its needs, goals and capacities.

Currently the FTAA draft text contains limited language on environment in the investment chapter. Amongst others, Ministers discussed, but did not agree on, whether the agreement should discourage the relaxation of domestic environmental laws in order to attract investment. Also in the context of investment, the draft agreement includes text that small economies should be compensated through the transfer of new environmentally friendly technology if they agree not to relax their national environment laws. However, all those provisions are still in brackets, i.e. they have not yet been agreed upon.

The environment, the people and sustainability assessments

Prior to the Ministerial Meeting civil society representatives met for the Americas Forum on Trade and Sustainable Development (AFTSD) to discuss implications of the nine FTAA negotiating areas on social, developmental and environmental issues. With regards to the environmental aspects of the free trade area, participants focused in particular on the interface between intellectual property rights (IPRs) and the conservation and sustainable use of biological resources. Participants concluded, inter alia, that the FTAA negotiations on IPRs should be supportive of negotiations undertaken in multilateral fora, including the Convention on Biological Diversity, the WTO, WIPO, FAO and others. On a positive note, participants highlighted that a range of countries in the Americas have advanced national IPR legislation supporting biodiversity conservation and protecting traditional knowledge. IUCN in this regard noted that the FTAA negotiations "can help trigger innovative thinking that can assist in breaking the stalemates that currently plague the negotiations at the global level".

During the AFTSD, civil society representatives also took a shot at assessing the potential impacts of the free trade agreement on sustainable development issues in developing countries. In particular, civil society groups are concerned that the "flexibility" provisions in the FTAA should not be confused with a solid commitment to development and might lure smaller countries into believing that there are no risks associated with trade liberalisation.

In order to assess the potential social and environmental implications of the FTAA, governments and non-governmental organisations have been advocating for the more widespread use of sustainability assessments of the agreement. Analyses are underway in several countries, including Chile and the US. Canada already published their initial environmental impact assessment. However, the current methodology to conduct the assessments has come under fire, as experts point to that the many reports exclusively use an ex-post approach — i.e. examining past experiences to draw lessons for future policy — instead of also using an ex-ante approach — i.e. using the proposed policy as the starting point. Furthermore, experts criticise that experiences from other free trade agreements are not taken into consideration in the assessments, and that the assessments focus too narrowly on the environmental effects of trade in goods and services, leaving out for example the potential effects of liberalisation in the agricultural sector on the environment.

In Miami, Ministers agreed to increase the participation of civil society. This could give some momentum to put forward the concerns of civil society related to the current Sustainability Assessments of free trade agreements.

Meanwhile on the other side of the world…

According to a recent report commissioned by OzProspect, a Melbourne-based think tank, the current negotiations on a bilateral free trade agreement between the US and Australia might have environmental implications, partly due to increased agricultural production for export. During negotiations at the end of October, Australia urged the US to open its agricultural markets, in particular for dairy, beef and sugar. According the OzProspect report, the opening of markets and a subsequent greater Australian agricultural production could raise Australia’s total water use in the agricultural sector by 7.5 percent and increase energy related greenhouse gas emissions by 25 percent. Furthermore the report points out that the increased use of chemical fertilisers and pesticides can cause water pollution and soil acidification. It also mentions potential conflicts with regards to the Australian legislation on labelling food products containing genetically modified material.

Additional Resources

For a more detailed account of the FTAA negotiations see the BRIDGES Miami Daily Updates.

"Ensuring Synergies Between The Free Trade Area Of The Americas And The Global Biodiversity Agenda," IUCN, 20 November 2003; "An Inconclusive FTAA," BRIDGES MIAMI DAILY UPDATES, 20 November 2003; "Environment Sidelined in FTAA Draft Agreement," ENS, 20 November 2003; "The Environmental Review of the FTAA: Examining the US Approach," CARNEGIE ENDOWMENT, August 2003.