email icon Email this citation


The Environmental Social Movement and the World Trade Organisation

Marc Williams

University of Sussex

International Studies Association
March 1998

The author gratefully acknowledges the support of the Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC). Research for this paper was funded under the ESRC's Global Economic Institutions Programme. It is part of a project titled "Global Economic Institutions and Global Social Movements". Grant #L120251027.

Introduction

Changes in political, security and economic structures in the past decade have given rise to speculation concerning the current nature, and future trajectory of world politics. Whether one focuses on revisioning the international system in a post-Cold War context, or facing the challenges of globalisation analysts and policy-makers appear to begin from the premise that the theory and practice of International Relations is undergoing fundamental change. Concern with ecological interdependence has been central to this process of material change and theoretical speculation. The 1980s witnessed the eruption of environmental issues on to both national and international agendas. And, it is widely recognised that the development of environmental issues contains the potential to transform traditional international politics. One significant feature of this process has been the role played by non-state actors. The search for global environmental governance is one in which the roles played by states, transnational corporations (and other corporate groups), and environmental NGOs has been recognised by students of international relations.

The transboundary nature of environmental issues and the globalisation of the economy that gives rise to them has generated conflict among a variety of actors, and instigated a search for regulatory frameworks to lessen the impact of environmental degradation. This paper is an attempt to explore one aspect of this process through an analysis of the role of the environmental movement in the debate on trade and environment. It will examine the efforts of environmental activists to influence the debate on trade and environment within the specific institutional context of the World Trade Organisation (WTO). The aim is not to test the significance of the environmental movement in influencing debates in the WTO but rather to assess the evolution of the process whereby the environmental movement has attempted to secure a role for itself in the discussions on trade and environment, and its success in influencing the trade and environment debate. As such, this paper will explore the manner in which transformations in world politics have created a political space for representatives of civil society to play an enhanced role international relations.

The environmental movement first began taking an interest in the multilateral trading system at the time of the dolphin-tuna controversy between the United States and Mexico. The two GATT panel rulings contributed to a perception in the environmental movement that trade rules decided by bureaucrats could affect environmental quality. This recognition of the trade-environment nexus engendered a heated debate, protests, and direct action by environmentalists. When the WTO supplanted the GATT in January 1995 the institutional focus of the environmental movement shifted to the new organisation. The campaign by environmentalists to reform the WTO is a product of the nature of the WTO as an international organisation, the historical evolution of the trade and environment debate, the resources possessed by the environmental movement, and changes in the broader systemic context within which the issue is embedded.

In the first section of the paper I will briefly outline the key characteristics of the environmental social movement. The existence of an environmental social movement has been affirmed by many analysts but close examination reveals distinct differences among environmentalists I concur with the conventional argument that despite the evidence of diversity an environmental movement exists but insist that analysis must begin with an awareness of these differences rather than a retreat to the methodological convenience of creating a 'typical' environmental social movement organisation. The status of the WTO as an international organisation is assessed in section two. Attention is focused on the WTO as a regulatory framework, and the openness of the organisation to non-state actors The third section is concerned with the ways in which environmental issues have been historically inscribed in the world trading system. It is argued that the emergence and consolidation of certain discursive practices are key to understanding the current discussions in the WTO. In section four I explore the efforts of the environmental movement to influence the debate in the WTO. Specific attention is given to the work programme of the WTO's Committee on Trade and the Environment (CTE). In the final section I argue that progress has been made in the debate between environmentalists and the trade community.

The Environmental Social Movement

The literature on social movements is vast and diverse, and there are varying interpretations concerning the composition of a social movement. Two theoretical approaches arising from different intellectual traditions have dominated the recent study of social movement behaviour. In European social thought social movements are considered from the perspective of their transformative power whereas in American social science social movements are judged by their organisational characteristics. (Yearley, 1994:151-154) . The European tradition has attempted to show why social movements arise whereas American social science relying on resource mobilisation theory has concentrated on how social movements mobilise. The European tradition places the study of social movements within a social setting, linking the rise and demise of movements to changing values and structures in capitalist society. Social movement theory in this tradition attempts to explain individual participation in social movements. A number of approaches such as mass society theory, relative deprivation, and collective behaviour theory were developed to explain movement participation "generated by the structural strains of rapid social change" (Jenkins, 1983:528). Resource mobilisation theories developed in the United States in the 1970s added an organisational element to earlier perspectives. These theorists examined the internal dimensions of social movements including fund-raising, professional expertise, decision-making structures, and goal formulation. Within this perspective the formation and development of a social movement depends on the existence of groups or people who manning to mobilise resources in pursuit of a certain cause and who determine the way in which these resources are pooled and directed towards social change. Recently theorists have attempted to combine elements of both approaches (Dalton, 1994; Yearley 1994) since neither approach, by itself, provides a satisfactory explanation.

The analysis of the environmental movement below is starts from the assumption that both ideological and organisational aspects are important.

The first question one faces in writing about a social movement concerns its very existence. In what sense, can we speak of an environmental movement? At the outset one should be wary of painting a picture of a homogenous movement. A plurality of environmental organisations operate at local, national, regional and international levels. Moreover, although it has become commonplace to speak of environmentalism and to refer to persons as environmentalists or 'Greens', nevertheless, different philosophies, and strategies can be discerned within the diverse organisations comprising the environmental movement. Differences in size, orientation, aims, ideology, resources, organisational forms, organisational culture, and range of activities makes it difficult to conceive of a single movement.

Nevertheless, it has become commonplace to write of an environmental movement. For Dalton the various strands of environmentalism are linked by a perception that they represent a challenge to 'the prevailing socio-political forces of advanced industrial societies' (1994:7), and for Lipschutz it is a common ethic which defines the movement (1992:363). The notion of an environmental movement articulating and espousing an alternative development paradigm from the conventional socio-economic one and challenging the conventional political, systems of Western democracies is widely shared. The environmental social movement is commonly perceived as a new social movement i.e. one which arose within post-industrial society. It is widely recognised to be a significant transnational force despite being a diverse movement consisting of a range of actors with differing strategies and goals.

Many writers distinguish between Northern and Southern environmental groups. This distinction reflects asymmetries in power, and different value systems. The movement in the North is linked to a post-industrial stage of development with its emergence of 'post-materialist' values and is often considered the concern of the middle-classes (Melluci 1989: 95-99; Lafferriere, 1994: 100). In the South the environmental social movement emerged and developed around community based organisations and is part of a wider network of activists working for democratisation and the protection of traditional lifestyles and habitats from external influences. Environmental NGOs in the South often have their base amongst the poor and dispossessed and environmental issues therefore are closely connected to issues of justice and equality (Williams, 1993:16). Therefore different issues can be at stake within societies and cultures at different stages of development.

The environmental movement developed out of local awareness and local efforts to resist environmental damage. Since the 1980s, however, environmental non-governmental organisations (ENGOs) within civil society have grown in size, scaling up their operations in order to influence states and international organisations. The existence of a hierarchical structure has been recognised by Sklair in his reference to transnational environmental organisations managed by a transnational environmental elite.(1994:210-212). In a similar vein Meyer discusses what he terms Yuppie NGOs e.g. BINGOs (Big NGOs), and GONGOs (government organised NGOs) (1995: 1278). These NGOs are closer to the money, less politicised in orientation and more technocratic. Many rely upon government or corporate funds and are acting more in tune with governments and companies than following the diverse interests of civil society. Although the vast majority of environmental groups remain rooted in their activities and focus at the local, regional or national levels many ENGOs attempt to exert influence in global politics. Within the new politics of the environment NGOs have emerged as prominent and significant actors. The international politics of the environment with its emphasis on scientific knowledge, erosion of national interest and search for global solutions provides an entry for non-state actors into the global political arena. (Princen and Finger, 1994) The role played by environmental NGOs is the result not only of the special circumstances of the environmental issue-area they also benefit from the so-called comparative advantage of NGOs. Recently a number of scholars have contended that NGOs are able to focus on the root of a problem and can faster community solutions to common problems thus adapting more quickly to, local needs and aspirations than governmental structures.

The Rio Earth Summit provided a startling display of the prominence of the environmental movement in global deliberations Over 20,000 participants from 9,000 organisations based in 171 countries were present at the Earth Summit (Meyer, 1995:1277). According to Rowlands this demonstrated the importance of civil society since it showed that governments alone cannot address the environmental crisis. (1992: 202). This increased role for NGOs serves to democratise otherwise undemocratic global structures and help to secure that the concerns of civil society are no longer marginalised. But UNCED also revealed the divisions and unequal distribution of power which have developed within the environmental movement. The well-established NGOs often disassociated themselves from grass roots organisations at the global forum, with mainstream environmental groups from the North holding most power. Conca claims that the main influence of NGOs was through having presence on national delegations which '...amplified the voice of a relatively well-heeled, mainstream Northern environmental organisations and, in[particular, several of the larger groups that were within the NGO community based in the USA (1995:449). Those with the power were the ones most prepared to sacrifice less acceptable demands to those powerful governments and TNCs.

The necessity of exercising caution in making claims for a new democratic politics has been highlighted by other writers. Some are concerned that the co-option of environmental organisations in civil society may serve to legitimise existing institutions providing them with a progressive 'green' image and symbolise a commitment to environmental protection, reducing the power of groups seeking more radical changes. ENGOs are faced with the problem of collaborating with powerful institutions while retaining an oppositional character. Some argue that the movement has been subjected to a 'divide and conquer' strategy by corporations in the USA who feel threatened by it (Stauber and Rampton, 1995; Hildyard, Sexton and Kerski 1995). Sophisticated PR campaigns '...orchestrates attacks against grass roots activists ion the one hand while simultaneously courting, co-opting and compromising mainstream environmental organisations on the other'. (Stauber and Rampton, 1995: 173) Corporations convert certain sectors of the environmental movement to the view that the only effective and realistic approach is to campaign for 'trade-offs', find common ground with business and relinquish any desire for radical change. ENGOs have a role to play in the creation of a global civil society especially given the failure of established authority to protect the environment and provide sustainable development. (Hildyard, Sexton and Kerski 1995:131). Building up a partnership with mainstream environmental groups gives TNCs legitimacy and a green image which can be exploited for financial gain. Moreover, corporate funding has become integral to many environmental bureaucracies.

The possible co-option and de-radicalisation of many NGOs reflects Bookchin's reluctant acknowledgement of 'modern capitalism's ability to co-opt almost anything'.(1994:1) It is evident that those willing to compromise their aims are more likely to gain positions of influence, thereby marginalising those members of civil society seeking more radical changes or alternative solutions to the environmental problems. It has been argued that ' By following the path of global solutions, the environmental movement lost its vitality and strength, uprooted out of the concrete spaces of men and women who act and think locally.' (Esteva and Prakash, 1994: 162) NGOs enter a territory of global thinking and global action, removing themselves from the actual territory of civil society and taking part in planetary management and global schemes.

Moreover, Northern NGOs especially American ones are enmeshed in a political process wherein domestic values, norms and methods of working shape the response to global institutions. The emphasis on legal issues, and access to information is nothing short of the globalisation of an American political culture onto the world of social movements. This is not of course to argue that these values are in some way inappropriate or not worth defending but rather to point out that structures of power are as evident in among social movements as among states.

The World Trade Organisation

The WTO was established on 1 January 1995 as a result of the decisions taken by the contracting Parties to the GATT at the conclusion of the Uruguay Round. The Final Act signed in Marrakesh in April 1994 concluded a process began at Punta del Este, Uruguay in September 1986. The WTO as the successor to the GATT provides the legal and institutional foundation of the global trading system. It replicates but also extends the mandate of the GATT. As an organisation the WTO has three main dimensions. It is, first, a legal agreement which provides a framework of rules, norms and principles to govern the multilateral trading system. In other words, it is the legal and institutional foundation of the world trading system. Second, it is a forum for multilateral trade negotiations. Multilateral trade agreements specify the principal contractual obligations determining trade negotiations and trade legislation, and the Trade Policy Mechanism facilitates the evolution of trade relations and trade policy. And, third, it acts as a centre for the settlement of disputes. The WTO dispute settlement procedures provide the machinery for settling members' differences on their rights and obligations. The extension of the WTO beyond trade in goods into intellectual property protection, surveillance over investment issues, and the strengthening of the dispute settlement procedures opens up a wider debate concerning the role of a multilateral trade organisation. Moreover, whereas the GATT as a contractual agreement appeared a blunt international organisation, the WTO can be conceived as a sharp organisation. 1

Since the end of the Second World War the multilateral trading system has been based on four key principles viz. non-discrimination, reciprocity, transparency and multilateral co-operation. From 1947 until the end of 1995 the GATT was the institutional expression of this rule based system. The Uruguay Round of trade negotiations which led to the creation of the WTO transformed the management of world trade in three respects. First, it engineered a shift from trade liberalisation based on tariff concessions (shallow or negative integration) to discussions of domestic policies, institutional practices and regulations (deep or positive integration). Second, it constructed a new agenda expanding the scope (through the inclusion of services, trade related intellectual property rights, and domestic [non-trade] policies), and changing the character of negotiations from a focus on bargaining over products to negotiations over policies that shape the conditions of competition. A third innovation was a movement towards policy harmonisation e.g., in the areas of subsidies, trade related investment measures, and services. This transformation of the institutional basis of the world trading system from the negative integration practised under GATT to the positive integration envisaged in the WTO is illustrative of the impact of globalisation on world trade. Globalisation has been accompanied by a growing discourse of multilateralism. The end of the Cold War and increasing liberalisation in national economies gave rise to hopes that the embedded liberalism of the post-war period could finally emerge into a fully fledged liberal order. Trade liberalisation under GATT consisted essentially of tariff cutting exercises. In this sense it can be seen as a negative process of restricting barriers to trade. In this process dispute settlement procedures were weak, and the power of the organisation to discipline errant members severely limited. The WTO not only extends the mandate of the GATT into new areas it redefines the relationship between national governments and the world trading system through the creation of an effective dispute settlement mechanism, the provision of a trade policy review mechanism, and the development of a set of mandatory codes. The WTO thus provides a higher and sharper profile for trade issues, and as such attracts the attention of a range of actors. Compared with the GATT, the increased scope, permanence and rule-making authority of the WTO has alarmed environmentalists and other civil society actors who fear that the organisation and control of vital national decisions have been gradually and irretrievably displaced from national control to a supranational organisation shrouded in secrecy.

The scope and complexity of the WTO is evident from a consideration of its key institutional features. The organisation consists of the following institutional features:

- the Agreement establishing the WTO;

- GATT 1994 and other multilateral trade agreements for goods including Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures (SPS), the agreement on technical barriers to trade (TBT), and the Agreement on Trade Related Investment Measures (TRIMs);

- the General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS);

- the Agreement on Trade Related Intellectual Property measures (TRIPs);

- the Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes;

- the Trade Policies Monitoring Mechanism (TPRM);

- and Plurilateral Agreements governing civil aircraft; government procurement; and dairy and bovine meat (the acceptance of these agreements is not mandatory for WTO members).

The main actors in the WTO are the member states. The chief decision -making body is the Ministerial Conference which meets every two years. To date only one Ministerial Conference has been held (Singapore 1996). In between the convening of the Ministerial Conferences a General Council which also acts as the dispute settlement body and the trade policies review body, together with a number of committees oversees the day-to-day work of the organisation. The WTO Secretariat provides technical and logistic support to the member states. Although trade negotiations involves the interests of a wide range of actors policy formulation in multilateral trade negotiations is formally restricted to government delegations.

But governments are not monolithic organisations, and trade policy is the subject of bargaining and debate between domestic groups representing a range of interests, for example, importers, exporters and consumers. It is within this context that environmental groups seek to engage with the WTO.

As such they are immediately faced with an institutional venue which excludes them from participation. The WTO provides a forum for intergovernmental negotiations and is not formally open to social movement activists. Although the WTO has been in existence for three years, and its institutional structure is different from the GATT in many respects developments in the organisation must be viewed in the light of the history of the GATT. Like its predecessor the WTO is an intergovernmental organisation which excludes non-state actors from its deliberative processes. The GATT in its 47 year history failed to establish any formal linkages with NGOs or other civil society organisations. This was surprising given that the plans for the post-war management of the multilateral trading system had envisaged a role for NGOs.(Charnovitz and Wickham, 1995) Likewise the WTO, to date, has created no institutional mechanisms which provides for contact between the organisation and social movements. The ability of social movement representatives to influence policy is dependent to some extent on access to policy-makers. The exclusion of environmental and other social movement organisations from the WTO constrains and restricts their ability to participate in the activities of the organisation.

However, the Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organisation provides some basis on which any future institutional arrangements can be established. The General Council of the WTO is empowered by Article v.2 to institute review relations between the organisation and NGOs. It states "The General Council may make appropriate arrangements for consultation and co-operation with non-governmental organisations concerned with matters related to those of the WTO." Furthermore, it is possible that NGO access could be provided through the dispute settlement mechanism. Article 13.2 states, inter alia, "Panels may seek information from any relevant source and may consult experts to obtain their opinion on certain aspects of the matter.."

On the 18 July 1996 the General Council adopted two decisions ('Guidelines For Arrangements on Relations with Non-Governmental Organisations', 2 and 'Procedures For The Circulation And De-Restriction Of WTO Documents') 3 which represent the first elaboration of Article v.2. The Guidelines reinforced the intergovernmental nature of WTO deliberations but made some concession to the roles that NGO can play in the wider public debate on trade and trade-related issues. The Secretariat was given prime responsibility for liaison with NGOs, and was empowered to engage in an expanded dialogue with the non-governmental sector. Secondly, the General Council agreed to de-restrict documents. Under the Procedures most WTO documents will be circulated as unrestricted, some will be de-restricted automatically after a sixty day period, others can be de-restricted at the request of a member but others, especially those pertaining to important current policy decisions will remain restricted.(Van Dyke and Weiner, 1996.; Weiner and Van Dyke, 1996.)

In the absence of a formal institutional forum informal relations are maintained between the Secretariat and NGOs. The Secretariat provides briefings on its work programme, and receives representations from NGOs. Apart from these contacts the Secretariat has organised a number of symposia with social movement representatives. The first held on the 10-11 June 1994 did little to promote constructive dialogue. It was apparent at this meeting that the intellectual disagreement between representatives from the environmental groups present and the Secretariat could not be easily bridged. The purpose of the symposium on trade, environment and sustainable development was to allow an exchange of views but animosity between the two groups resulted in a dialogue of the deaf. Moreover, tensions within the environmental movement contributed to a meeting regarded by all participants as a failure.(General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, 1994) Prior to the First Ministerial Meeting of the WTO held in Singapore in December 1996, the Secretariat organised a meeting on 26-27 September 1996 with participants representing environmental, development, and consumer groups. This meeting was felt to be much more constructive by all participants. 4 Further consultations between the WTO secretariat and social movement representatives have provided a forum in which environmentalists have gained access to the organisation.

One further innovation of the WTO was the creation of a Home Page on the Internet which makes available to a wide public a range of WTO documents including dispute panel reports as soon as they are adopted. The Trade and Environment Bulletin which reports on the activities of the Committee on Trade and Environment provides a useful summary of the proceedings of that committee. Similar publications covering the work of other sectors is not planned but activists have asked for this service to be extended to other areas of the WTO's work programme.

Interest in the activities of first, the GATT, and now the WTO has been evinced by NGOs and other organisations representing environmental, development, and consumer interests. Concern over the rules of the global trading system tended to surface during the periodic rounds of tariff cutting. The onset of the Uruguay Round with its expanded agenda garnered more interest in GATT than previous rounds. Many people and groups were concerned that the scope of the Uruguay Round privileged the multilateral trading system over national policy making.

Environmental Issues in the World Trading System

The Origins

Discussion of the environmentalist challenge to the organisation responsible for monitoring developments in the world trading system usually begin with the dolphin-tuna controversy but to understand the development of the debate concerning the greening of world trade it is necessary to establish the historical context within which the trade and environment issue arose in the GATT, and to trace (briefly) the organisational response to this new issue. This story is a good example of agenda setting. It shows us how a topic defined as an issue made its way onto the formal agenda but was effectively blocked from active consideration until circumstances changed.

In November 1971 immediately prior to the United Nations Conference on the Human Environment (the Stockholm Conference) the GATT Council established a Group on Environmental Measures and International Trade (GEMIT) to examine, "upon request any specific matters relevant to the trade policy aspects of measures to control pollution and protect the human environment, and report back to the Council."(General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1993a) However, GEMIT a political response to the Stockholm Conference never met since the strength of opposition to merging trade and environment interests was very strong. In the run up to UNCED new pressures arose for an examination of the trade/environment nexus. At the Uruguay Round Ministerial Meeting in Brussels in December 1990 the EFTA countries requested that the GEMIT be convened to examine the relationship between trade and environmental policies. This led to an inconclusive debate in May 1991 at the GATT Council Meeting. The opposition of a number of delegations was sufficient to stymie the calls for a GEMIT meeting. Immediately after UNCED, and following the first dolphin-tuna ruling it was apparent that the trade and environment issue occupied a place on the agenda, and that UNCED issues were not adequately covered in GEMIT's remit. GEMIT was reconvened in July 1993 to discuss the results of UNCED. At this time it became clear that leading advanced industrialised countries, and developing countries felt that the time had come for GATT to take up the trade and environment debate. These views were sometimes defensive, for example, the US delegate stated that environmental issues should not be left to environmental experts given the overlap between trade and the environment; and the Indian representative expressed the view that it was imperative for GATT to counter the false propaganda that the organisation was indifferent to environmental concerns. Some delegations adopted a more positive approach, e.g. the Brazilian delegate argued that Agenda 21 should be fully integrated into GATT since poverty is the worst polluter in the developing world.(General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1993b)

The standard GATT, and later WTO position on the environment was adopted at this time. The viewpoint expressed by the majority of member governments was that environmental concerns could be fully accommodated within a flexible interpretation of GATT rules. Moreover, it was stressed that an open non-discriminatory system can facilitate environmental conservation and protection by helping to encourage more efficient resource allocation to generate real income growth. Three key policies were identified - multilateral environmental agreements, transparency, and eco-labelling.

Enter the Environmentalists

Until 1990 trade policy had not captured the attention and hence organisational energies of the environmental movement Following the decision by the US administration in late 1990 to negotiate a North American Free Trade (NAFTA) environmentalists in Canada, Mexico and the U.S. mobilised to exert influence on their respective government's policies. If opposition to NAFTA brought a serious questioning of the benefits of free trade it was the GATT's ruling in respect of the dolphin-tuna controversy which lit the touch-fuse under a simmering conflict and exploded the trade-environment debate. Concerted pressure on the GATT by environmentalists first surfaced as a result of the 1991 GATT Panel ruling in respect of the tuna-dolphin dispute between the United States and Mexico. The Panel's decision which upheld Mexican sovereignty and rejected the extra-territorial expansion of American law appeared to many environmentalists to be fundamentally flawed. The ensuing debate was frequently portrayed as a clash between free trade economists on one hand and green protectionists on the other. Differing perceptions of the impact of the liberal trading system on environmental degradation, the potential of market-based solutions for environmental harm, and commitment to continued economic growth produced divergent and conflicting policy proposals from liberal economists (and the GATT Secretariat), and the environmental movement.

The relationship between trade and the environment has given rise to two broadly competing positions. (Williams, 1994: 10-97) On one hand, proponents of free trade argue that no inherent incompatibility exists between the goals of environmental sustainabilty and trade creation and expansion. On the other hand, environmentalists of different persuasions contend that a liberal trade regime automatically creates the conditions conducive to environmental degradation. This conflict between free traders and environmentalists has been labelled a clash of cultures, paradigms and judgements (Esty, 1994). The ensuing clash of policies arises from the fundamentally different approaches to the relationship between trade and environment. Friction exists between environmentalists seeking a regulatory regime and free trade proponents who insist on the virtues of a liberal framework.

The central contention of liberal economists is that trade liberalisation promotes growth which enables states to tackle environmental degradation. This position is admirably summed up by in the World Development Report 1992 which stated inter alia that, "...using trade restrictions to address environmental problems is inefficient and usually ineffective. Liberalised trade fosters greater inefficiency and higher productivity and may actually reduce pollution by encouraging the growth of less polluting industries and the adoption and diffusion of cleaner technologies." (World Bank, 1992: 67) This view was echoed by the GATT Secretariat Report on Trade and the Environment (1992) which argued that (i) GATT was neutral in the formation of policies necessary to promote sustainable development; (ii) the solution lies in assigning prices and values to environmental resources so that the environmental effects of economic activity can be identified and valued; (iii) if the policies necessary for sustainable development are in place, trade promotes development that is sustainable.

Within the liberal economic paradigm trade liberalisation is not the primary cause of environmental degradation. Unsustainable economic growth arises from market failure and the inability of governments to engage in adequate environmental pricing. The presumption is that restrictions on trade are not only inadequate but also positively dangerous since under the cloak of environmentalism the dangers of protectionism are ever present. Although empirical evidence and developments in trade theory cast strong doubt on the shibboleth of free trade the underlying truth of the law of comparative advantage and the superiority of market-based solutions remain articles of faith for many economists and policy-makers.

Environmentalists call for trade restrictions to prevent the spread of pollution by trade. Moreover, they argue that trade should be restricted because a liberal trading regime provides incentives to expand production and trade whilst disregarding pollution. environmentalists believe that trade liberalisation in encouraging economic growth damages the environment. Production for export markets is more environmentally damaging than production for home consumption e.g. "putting agricultural resources at the service of export markets, in countries that are not self-sufficient in food, enormous pressures are created for local peoples to over-exploit other resources simply to eke out the barest existence." (Shrybman, 1990:31)

The Uruguay Round was launched in Punta del Este, Uruguay in September 1986 before environmental issues became prominent on the international agenda. 5 The absence of environmental issues on the negotiating agenda during the initial stages of the Uruguay Round of multilateral trade negotiations aroused no adverse comment. At the conclusion of the negotiations it was impossible to conceive of a new trade organisation which ignored environmental issues. . By the end of the negotiating process environmental issues had become an important political topic. The inclusion of environmental considerations in the WTO reflects the globalisation of, and increasing attention given to, environmental concerns; the construction, articulation and location of sustainable development at the centre of national and international policy frameworks; and the campaign by the environmental movement against the GATT. The failure of the negotiators to address environmental issues (except in the most cursory manner) combined with the high profile of the trade-environment debate inevitably ensured that environmental issues would be included in the future work programme of the WTO.

The WTO and the Environmentalists

As previously stated the environmental movement is diverse, and different groups have pursued different objectives. In what follows I will be concentrating on that section of the movement that has been lobbying for reform of the rules of the world trading system. These 'reformers' can be differentiated from the 'radical' groups that seek the abolition of the WTO. Of course such a dichotomy is not always easy to sustain since individuals and groups not only shift positions over time but some organisations may well house a variety of views. It is possible to discern a shift in the relations between 'reformist' environmentalist groups and the WTO from one of incomprehension to the beginnings of some accommodation. Some measure of accommodation is discernible between the trade community and environmental groups with offices in Geneva engaging in lobbying and advocacy activities At the outset both groups mistrusted the economic arguments put forward by the other side and little real dialogue was possible. Both groups are now aware that the existing knowledge on trade-environment linkages is very tentative and in the past two years both the WTO Secretariat and NGOs like WWF, and the IUCN have been prepared to examine the evidence in a manner unlikely to maintain the previous degree of polarisation. Broadly speaking the reformers have sought to redirect policies and alter institutional procedures in the WTO. Other environmental groups e.g. Greenpeace are less prepared to engage in these discussions.

The environmental NGOs have developed a two-fold strategy in their attempts to alter world trade rules. Analysis and research is aimed at changing the way in which the trade and environment nexus is perceived. Policy advocacy requires new information and political support in order to promote the reform agenda. To this end environmental groups like the WWF have engaged in analysis of trade and environmental issues with the aim of making policy recommendations. These recommendations are directed at policy-makers. In other words, lobbying is concentrated on gaining political support among the informed public rather than the general public. In Geneva environmentalists have built up contacts with representatives of national governments and WTO staff. At the national level environmentalists have established contacts in various government departments. Within pluralist democracies environmentalists have been trying to affect the composition of national trade negotiating teams in order to increase the participation of environmental ministries in trade talks. Secondly, environmental groups engaged in lobbying the WTO have formed diverse transnational advocacy coalitions. These networks are useful in developing and supporting public campaigns on specific policies.

Institutional Venue

During the final stages of the Uruguay Round the objective of integrating environmental concerns into the structure of the organisation through the creation of a Committee on Trade and Environment was unsuccessful. But the preamble to the WTO included direct reference to sustainable development Opponents of the establishment of an environmental committee based their argument on two considerations. The first argument was based on precedent. It was argued that it had never been GATT practice to create institutional frameworks before matters of a substantive nature had been settled in a particular area. The second argument appealed to political realities. Those opposed to the mainstreaming of environmental issues in the new organisation argued that the issue was so divisive that attempts to resolve it would further delay the ratification of the WTO. And this view was successful since the environment is not part of the negotiations and final act It was therefore decided to consider the institutional structure in consultations prior to Marrakesh. The Marrakesh Ministerial Meeting (April 1994) which led to the creation of the WTO decided to create a Committee on Trade and Environment (CTE). In the interim before the WTO began work on 1 January 1995 a sub-committee of the GATT was created to handle environmental matters.

Environmental issues arise throughout the WTO's organisational structure but it has been in the Committee on Trade and Environment (CTE) that discussions have centred on the interrelationship between trade and the environment. The CTE is a deliberative rather than a policy-making body which between its first meeting in February 1995 and the Singapore Ministerial Meeting concentrated on clarifying the relationship between trade and the environment. The terms of reference of the Committee on Trade and the Environment are:

(i) to identify the relationship between trade measures and sustainable development;

(ii) to make appropriate recommendations on whether the multilateral trading system should be modified;

(iii) to assess the need for rules to enhance the interaction between trade and environment including avoidance of protectionist measures and surveillance of trade measures used for environmental purposes.

Two parameters have guided the CTE's work programme. The WTO's competence for policy co-ordination in this area is limited to trade and those trade related aspects of environmental policies which may result in trade effects for its members. In other words, the WTO will not become involved in reviewing national environmental priorities, setting environmental standards or developing global policies for the environment. Secondly, in the event of the identification of problems of policy co-ordination to protect the environment steps taken to resolve them must uphold or safeguard principles of the trading system. The CTE was given two years to fulfil its mandate with a review of its usefulness to be conducted at the Singapore Ministerial Meeting. This review concluded that the CTE should continue to function but lacking a chairman until recently the committee remained moribund for most of 1997. The first Ministerial Conference of the WTO held in Singapore 9-13 December 1996 provided the environmental movement with its first opportunity to address the achievements of the WTO in a comprehensive manner. Environmental NGOs were strongly critical of the failure of the CTE to make any substantive progress in its deliberations.(WWF 1996b; International Institute for Sustainable Development, 1996). Environmentalists argued that the CTE's agenda was very narrow, and fails to meet the task of addressing trade and sustainable development in order to make recommendations on whether modifications of the multilateral trading system are required. (Friends of the Earth 1996) The CTE instead of addressing the crucial issues on trade and the environment had been side-tracked into discussions on technical issues. Furthermore, it had only dealt with three issues - the relationship between WTO rules and trade measures relating to multilateral environmental agreements (MEAs); ecolabelling and WTO rules; and the effects of environmental measures on market access - in any detail. Moreover, environmental NGOs were sharply critical of the manner in which environmental issues had been shifted to the CTE. Sustainable development touches on the WTO's work programme in a number of ways, and environmental NGOs argue that this realisation should influence WTO policy.

World Trade Rules and the Environment

The conflict between liberal economists and environmentalists has moved from a general debate concerning the trade-environment link to discussion of specific issues in the context of trade and sustainable development. These include problems related to trade in products created through environmentally damaging and unsustainable production processes ; the relationship between the multilateral trading system and multilateral environmental agreements; and eco-labelling Production, process and methods (PPMs) are central to efforts to introduce sustainable development to the global trading system. PPMs refer to the techniques and methods used in the production of a product. And the debate arises because the rules of the liberal trading system regulates products but not the processes used to create them.(WWF, 1996a:7) The trade community is opposed to the inclusion of PPMs on grounds of efficiency and the difficulty of ensuring compliance. Given different absorptive capacities, and differing environmental values the attempt to impose global standards will not only shift specialisation away from comparative advantage it will also impose external values on sovereign sates. Moreover, opponents point out the difficulties inherent in devising systems of monitoring and compliance during production processes. On the other hand, environmentalists contend that it is difficult to sustain a distinction between production and products. PPMs are necessary to protect health and the environment. In this view PPMs would assist in the development of more efficient production and stricter environmental standards. A system based on the polluter pays principle would it is claimed diminish the necessity for cumbersome monitoring measures.

Environmentalists argue that not only has the CTE has failed to make any progress on trade measures relating to MEAs but it has disrupted the existing consensus by apparently extending the WTO's jurisdiction. One interpretation of the CTE's activities suggests that trade measures agreed in MEAs and applied between the parties could still be taken before a WTO Dispute Panel. That is, WTO members could resort to the WTO dispute settlement mechanism to undermine obligations already agreed to in MEAs. Since MEAs are an effective means of addressing transboundary global environmental threats the WTO could undermine them. And continuing uncertainty over WTO rules could deter parties from the use of trade measures in MEAs.(WWF, 1996b:2)

Environmentalists allege that WTO rules on eco-labelling are unclear For example, it is not certain whether WTO rules included in the Technical Barriers to Trade Agreement (TBT) and its annexes cover eco-labels based on non-product related PPMs.(IUCN, 1996:36) One aspect of this controversy relates to the fact that it is not clear whether TBT rules apply to standards involving life cycle analysis. Since TBTs refer to product standards and indirectly to PPMs it is not clear whether the rules apply to, for example, the use of pesticides in production even where there is no pesticide residue. They argue that non product PPMs should be placed on the agenda, and demand the inclusion of eco-labelling practitioners in the negotiations.

Transparency, Participation and Accountability

Environmental activists have been campaigning for increased participation by NGOs in the WTO. Environmentalists and other groups have portrayed the WTO (and the GATT before it) as a secretive organisation lacking in accountability. It is argued that civil society organisations have a crucial role to play in making the world trading system more transparent and accountable.(Enders, 1996; Esty, 1997) Environmental NGOs with a focus on the deliberations in Geneva argue that access to information and participation in decision-making is vital for democracy, and will also improve the policy outputs of the WTO. The environmentalists are aware that the nature of trade negotiations means that an open-access regime for NGOs is not a feasible proposition. Thus their demands for participation and transparency are couched in reformist terms. Proposed reforms maintains the intergovernmental character of the organisation whilst enhancing public scrutiny of the multilateral trading system. environmentalists claim that the WTO can be reformed in ways which do not impinge on the need for secrecy in bodies like the Trade Policy Review Mechanism. They suggest that membership of the CTE should be expanded to include NGOs. The claim is for observer status rather than full membership. Moreover, they argue that the Dispute Settlement Mechanism should make greater usage of independent experts. On the issue of transparency NGOs are very critical of the existing arrangements for the de-registration of documents. They argue that if crucial documents can be kept restricted until 6 months after being issued the monitoring functions of NGOs will be handicapped.

Sally Bullen and Brennan Van Dyke (1996) in a trenchant critique of WTO policy have presented eight key arguments at the centre of the environmentalist case for increased access to the WTO decision-making machinery. First, public participation ensures balanced policy input and promotes sustainable development. Working from a liberal belief in the efficacy of pluralism environmentalists argue that governing systems that integrate public input will consistently produce the best outcomes because the wider the range of views the better the decision-making process, and the sounder the outcome. Policy-makers should therefore produce avenues for effective public participation. Moreover, public participation ensures that a complete set of high quality information is considered and understood by decision-makers. Apart from balanced input public participation increases the likelihood that a complete set of quality information informs policy-making. Given the note the special nature of environmental policy-making and the role of information, science and knowledge in this issue-area the exclusion of environmental NGOs restricts valuable research and information from reaching the decision-makers. Environmental NGOs are likely to ensure that a full range of potential consequences are addressed because they can provide information and expertise on interdisciplinary issues. Third, it is argued that public participation promotes public support which in turn promotes effective policy-making. Since governments rely on public support for credibility broad based support fostered by public participation ensures that policies are likely to be implemented. Moreover, the greater the number of stakeholders involved the better the policy. the credibility of international institutions depends on the support they have in member states. Fourth, participation processes will educate the public about trade policy and its implications. The best strategy for generating broad public support for trade policies will be through a more open system. An educated public will understand the needs to balance competing interest in trade policy. A related argument stresses the fact that public participation will ensure that decisions are taken in the public interest. It will provide a counter to those actors with disproportionate economic power i.e. countervailing power, and help governments to shield themselves from pressures from powerful vested interests . This is a neat twist since it is precisely as a vested interest that WTO officials and free traders see environmentalist! Sixth, public participation can be managed and regulated such that it does not impede efficiency. Seventh public participation can be managed and regulated such that it does not compromise legitimate confidentiality concerns. Finally, public participation is consistent with the requirements of good governance.

Most member governments reject the demands for increased participation. Many developing countries are concerned that any moves in this direction will further enhance Northern interests at their expense since the NGOs with the capacity to engage in any meaningful sense with the policy process will be from the North. Opponents of reform make four main points. First, it is argued that the various groups attempting to lobby the WTO should do so in their home countries. Since trade policy is the result of a domestic political bargain then it is at the national level that environmental, development, business, and consumer interests should attempt to influence policy. Second, the WTO's negotiations demand a high level of secrecy which cannot be guaranteed if participation is granted to non-state actors. In the process of bargaining governments frequently have to trade-off one domestic interest against another. Governments would be unable to make progress in multilateral trade negotiations if other actors were involved. Third, the negotiation process in Geneva should not encourage the active involvement of protectionist groups. Any attempt to widen participation in WTO decision-making to increase social movement participation will inevitably increase the lobbying activities of the business community. Given the competitive advantage business organisations possess over NGOs any liberalisation in access for NGOs would increase the influence of large corporations. Some governments query the representative nature of NGOs. They argue that not only will it be difficult to devise a method of accrediting legitimate NGOs but that many NGOs do not represent a distinct community of interests.

This defence of current practice in the WTO rests on a reassertion of the intergovernmental status of the organisation, and the special features of trade negotiations. Whilst the demand for participation made by NGOs is unlikely to be met in the near future it is apparent that governments are attempting to engage in a more open manner with development and environmental organisations. Defenders of the liberal trade order need allies in order to defeat the ever-present supporters of protectionism. Trade officials are concerned with enhancing the legitimacy of the liberalisation project, and to this end are prepared to engage with representatives of civil society in an attempt to widen the public base of support for increased liberalisation.

Conclusion

The trade and environment debate is conducted at many levels, between diverse participants, and in multiple fora. This paper has looked at one facet of this wide-ranging process. For example, one leading actor in this process the international business community which has articulated its vision of the trade-environment nexus (World Business Council for Sustainable Development, 1995) has not been the subject of scrutiny. Moreover, efforts by members of the environmental movement to challenge the trade rules in national contexts and other international fora has been excluded. It could be argued that the environmental movement has developed two strategies in respect of the world trading system i.e. engagement and rejection. This study has focused on the former strategy.- We have been concerned less with public protests and more with the attempt by some ENGOs to engage in reasoned debate with the trade community. These organisations are attempting to shift the trade paradigm so that environmental issues are inscribed in a meaningful manner in trade negotiations.

The Uruguay Round of multilateral trade negotiations extended rules to new issues. Although it has been argued in respect of trade and environment that 'a well established recognition by all governments that this is a priority issue' (Hopkinson, 1995) guaranteed the development of a serious attempt to reconcile the objectives of sustainable development with those of an open trading system many environmentalists viewed the creation of the WTO with suspicion. In examining the efforts of the environmental movement to influence the negotiations in the WTO this paper has suggested that the creation of the WTO marked one turning point in the efforts of environmentalists to green the world trading system. We can distinguish at least two phases in this struggle. The first phase begins with the dolphin-tuna controversy and is marked by intense antagonism and hostility between the trade community and environmental activists. In this phase rejectionist approaches appeared to be dominant. The second phase is marked by the conclusion of the Uruguay Round and establishment of the WTO. With environmental issues now firmly on the agenda many influential ENGOs have developed a strategy of engagement.

As we have seen the environmental movement’s attempt to insert environmental issues into the world trading system has met with some success. The complacent approach of trade officials has been replaced by one in which the linkages between trade and the environment are recognised as important. Nevertheless, after three years of activity it is not clear what the CTE has achieved in developing the environmental agenda. And the relationship between trade and environment remains contested. I have argued that the ability of environmentalists to challenge the system of world trade rules has been constrained by the institutional context of the WTO, and the discourse of free trade. The WTO is a relatively closed organisation to participation by social movement representatives The tradition of secrecy in trade negotiations, the intergovernmental status of the organisation and its function as a negotiating forum militate against increased access for social movement activists. In the face of this evidence one could conclude that efforts directed at the WTO are misplaced, since effective pressure to reform world trade is most likely to be found in the domestic arena. Such a conclusion, however, would be premature. If it is accepted that with the creation of the WTO the structure of governance in the global trade regime has shifted with an increase of power to the international organisation it follows that campaigns directed solely at the national level will fail to capture the entire range of issues. No definite conclusions can be drawn at this stage but given the fact that environmental issues will continue to assume importance in the multilateral trading system the environmental movement will remain one of the actors in the contested terrain of trade and environment.

Notes:

Note 1: For a discussion of the distinction between blunt and sharp as applied to international organisations see Ogley ((1969). Back.

Note 2: WT/L/162; 23 July 1996). Back.

Note 3: WT/L/160/Rev.1 (22 July 1996). Back.

Note 4: Secretariat officials explain the difference between the two meetings in terms of the increased sophistication of environmental groups present concerning trade issues. Environmental (and other ) social movement representatives argue that the key difference bewteen the meetings in 1994 and 1996 was a conciliatory process started by the Quaker mission in Geneva which brought together governmental officails, social movement representatives, and WTO bureaucrats. Back.

Note 5: It is interesting to note that John Croome's official history of the Uruguay Round published by the WTO contains no reference to the environment either in the table of contents or index. See Croome (1996). Back.

References