Memo to DFAIT from Dixon Thompson and Rachel McCormick

Re: Response to Invitation to Meet with Mr. Michael Moore Director General WTO Oct 26 - Keeping a level playing field for industry and civil society

I would like very much to accept the invitation to participate in a panel discussion with Mr. Moore on Oct 26. Unfortunately, I will be teaching a graduate course in Environmental Management in Quito Ecuador that week and cannot attend. I could send Rachel McCormick, one of my graduate students, to attend in my place; however, travel and accommodation costs prevent that.

It is very important that people other than corporate representatives attend such meetings in Ottawa. so that the Government of Canada and the WTO representatives get a balanced view of what Canadians think about trade and environment issues.

Therefore, I will raise two sets of issues for your consideration: (1) DFAIT and WTO get a distorted view of Canadian opinion because of differences in resources available to corporations and to individuals to attend such meetings, and (2) The issues we would have raised, had we been able to attend the panel discussion.

(1) DFAIT and WTO get a distorted view of Canadian opinion.

For Canadian citizens to attend such meetings, they have to cover travel and accommodation costs, and such expenses are not deductible. They also have to take time from their jobs. On the other hand, corporations can pay the travel costs of employees to go to such meetings and those costs are tax deductible, so the taxpayer pays. Thus corporations can present their views on the issue at little or no cost, whereas citizens presenting their views must pay the full cost.

This imbalance in access to resources to present opinions may be a significant part of the reason why Canadian government positions represent corporate interests and do not fully represent the views of civil society. It might also be a factor, which causes groups and individuals to decide that they have to find other means, such as protests, to present their opinions to the government.

The Government of Canada therefore must find effective means of determining what civil society thinks about issues, rather than hearing mainly from corporate interests.

For example, the invitation did not acknowledge that it might be impossible for some people to attend and did not offer an alternative means of participating. An invitation to send a short written presentation might have been one way of offsetting the current imbalance. Therefore, DFAIT must add to the consultation process by providing other means of participation for those who do not have corporate, tax-deductible financial resources.

We would suggest that you state that constructive criticism and suggestions for how to solve problems are more helpful than complaints about the process or descriptions of problems.

Other possibilities for broadening participation in such events beyond the corporations that can afford it would include: travel funds for citizens and citizen group representatives; tax deductions for participation like those for corporations; the use of CBC radio and television (Cross Country Checkup, Television fora); involvement of schools, colleges and universities.

(2) Issues we would have raised, had we been able to attend.

It must be acknowledged that WTO is a creature of the member nations and respond to their initiatives and directions, rather than take independent action. None-the-less, the vigor and aggressiveness of a response is under the control of the WTO secretariat. It can select which suggestions/recommendations get action.

• How many people in the WTO staff have environmental expertise? The World Bank under went a major transformation starting a decade ago, when they began to develop the capability of including environmental factors in World Bank decisions. In a similar fashion, Canada's DFAIT has added environmental expertise to improve the ability to consider environmental factors in trade negotiations. There is nothing to prevent the WTO from doing the same thing. What would it take to get the WTO started on that process?

• Many leading corporations are now accepting social responsibilities and doing their planning on the basis of the Triple Bottom Line (Economic, social, environmental), rather than a single economic bottom line. Would this corporate model not make sense for the WTO?

• The WTO is a trade organization and will remain so, even when environmental factors and included in WTO activities and decisions. It does not make sense to try to make the WTO an environmental organization. However, there is a need for strengthening of the many MEAs (Multinational Environmental Agreements). Would the WTO lend support to the development and implementation of a WEO (World Environment Organization), which would be similar to the WTO but deal with global environmental issues? When a parallel WEO is established, there will be a need for effective working relationships, communication and coordination to avoid conflict, promote compatibility, and reduce the costs of the two secretariats.

• Internalizing Externalities. The externalities (costs not included in the price of goods and services) related to trade (social costs including health and environment costs) are not always accommodated in trade practices. If externalities are internalized, the market will operate in practice, more closely to how it is supposed to operate in theory. Will the WTO work to see that the external costs associated with trade (including transportation) are identified, quantified and internalized. External costs can be seen as a form of subsidy, because the prices of goods and services do not include all costs. Would the WTO recognize externalities as a form of subsidy, and use internalization of externalities as a means of removing the subsidy?

• Will the WTO facilitate the "Race the Top" (Highest Common Denominator) and help to slow the "Race to the Bottom" (Lowest Common Denominator) by helping to standardize proven environmental management tools and to build capacity in developing countries for use of tools such as: Environmental Impact Assessment (Canada, USA, Mexico; EU; World Bank), ISO 1400I Environmental Management Systems, ISO 14010 Environmental Audits, and ISO 14040 Life Cycle Assessment?

• The CTE (Committee on Trade and Environment) has been ineffective at making any change in the WTO. This is a result of a large mandate, lack of resources, and inconsequential role in informing policy. Its predecessor was in existence for many years but was inactive. Will the WTO work to strengthen the CTE and help to see the CTE's advice be heeded? If not, any commitments to sustainable development in the preamble to the Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization are likely to go unrealized.

Back to EVDS FTAA Home Page