Cynthia L. Atwood, Science Correspondent Yale University Office of Public Affairs 433 Temple St. New Haven, CT 06520 (203) 432-1326, fax (203) 432-1323 [email protected]
CONTACT: Cynthia L. Atwood #1 For Immediate Release: July 2, 1997
U.S.-Japan Study Group Offers Recommendations For Better International Trade and Environment Policies
New Haven, CT ã Trade and environment experts from the United States and Japan today issued a joint statement offering recommendations for better management of environmental issues by international organizations such as the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation forum (APEC) and the World Trade Organization (WTO).
Recommendations included a more focused mandate for the WTO's Committee on Trade and Environment, and closer attention by policy makers to the idea of forming a global environmental organization that would operate in tandem with the WTO.
The recommendations were agreed upon at a New York City meeting June 26-27 organized by the Global Environment & Trade Study (GETS) at Yale University and the Global Industrial and Social Progress Research Institute (GISPRI) in Tokyo. The study group, which began preparing for the meeting more than a year ago, was chaired by GETS director Steve Charnovitz of Yale and GISPRI director Katsuo Seiki.
Other participants included Daniel Esty, director of the Yale Center for Environmental Law and Policy, and associate professor at the Yale School of Forestry and Environmental Studies and the Yale Law School; Mark Ritchie of the Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy; Christopher Stone of the University of Southern California Law Center; Kazuhiro Ueta of Kyoto University; Mitsutsune Yamaguchi of Keio University; Hideaki Shiroyama of the University of Tokyo; James Cameron of the Foundation for International Environmental Law and Development in the United Kingdom; and Satoshi Miyake of GISPRI. Funding for the collaboration was provided by the Center for Global Partnership (Japan Foundation).
Additional recommendations for APEC and the WTO from the study group focused on better analysis of subsidies for agriculture, fishing, energy and forestry industries, because such subsidies frequently distort the market and damage the environment without providing any clear
(more) PAGE TWO (U.S.-Japan Study Group)
economic benefits; developing better mechanisms for mediating environmental disputes between nations; encouraging more research into the linkage between trade and the environment; recognizing the value of input from business and environmental groups; and moving toward effective and efficient reduction of greenhouse gases.
Professor Esty said policy makers must find a middle course between "blind environmentalism and narrowly focused trade liberalization." Successfully navigating between these twin hazards will require a worldwide environmental policy organization -- which he suggested calling the Global Environmental Organization (GEO) -- operating in parallel with the WTO.
The proposed GEO, which drew support last week from German Chancellor Helmut Kohl and several other world leaders at the U.N. General Assembly Special Session "Earth Summit + Five Years," need not be a big, new bureaucracy, Professor Esty said. In fact, the organization should be a streamlined body with a carefully tailored mission. It should replace the sagging U.N. Environment Program and the Commission on Sustainable Development, which he called "a dysfunctional legacy" of the Earth Summit in Rio.
The WTO's Committee on Trade and Environment needs a more focused mandate, increased environmental participation and further analytical input, according to the study group. "The WTO committee's focus should be on areas in which agreements benefit both developed and developing countries, such as increased market access and elimination of inefficient subsidies," Mr. Charnovitz said. "The committee's membership should be expanded to include national and international environmental officials as well as representatives from nonprofit environmental groups."
Furthermore, environmental protection and trade liberalization should be viewed as compatible goals that can be mutually reinforcing rather than conflicting, the environmental experts agreed.
In addition to the joint policy statement issued today, the study group will publish several research papers this fall on the environmental dimensions of APEC, dispute mediation in APEC, and fishery, agricultural, and pollution control subsidies. For more information, contact Dan Esty, (203) 432-6256, or Rajini Ramakrishnan, (203) 432-6065.
(more) PAGE THREE (U.S.-Japan Study Group)
Note to Editors: The Global Environment & Trade Study (GETS) at Yale University draws together a diverse group of trade, environment and development experts -- including scientists, economists, ethicists, lawyers, geographers and political scientists -- with the goal of formulating concrete, practical and politically feasible proposals for reconciling trade liberalization and environmental protection.
The three core GETS institutions are the Foundation for International Environmental Law and Development in London, directed by James Cameron; the Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy in Minneapolis, directed by Mark Ritchie; and the Yale Center for Environmental Law and Policy, directed by Daniel Esty.
###
Improving Trade and Environmental Policy
Joint Statement by Participants in Japan-U.S. Collaboration Sponsored by the Center for Global Partnership
Over the past year, two research institutions -- the Global Environment & Trade Study (GETS) and the Global Industrial and Social Progress Research Institute (GISPRI) -- have been engaged in a joint trans-Pacific analytical project to explore new ways to make trade and environmental policies more mutually reinforcing in the United States, Japan, within APEC, and globally.
This project has been carried out at a pivotal time in the international debate on trade and environment. In November 1996, the World Trade Organization (WTO) Committee on Trade and the Environment (CTE) issued its first report and, to widespread disappointment, generated few recommendations. Environment-related disputes at the WTO continue to stir up controversy. Although the leaders of APEC have committed themselves to "sustainable development," little has been done to make this promise a reality.
In June 1997, a number of leaders at the U.N. General Assembly expressed concerns over the adequacy of the existing international institutional structure and over the failure to make substantive progress since Rio. Even in the face of these policy frustrations, the GETS/GISPRI participants see many opportunities for progress on "trade and environment." Specifically, we note the following:
1. APEC is a potentially valuable forum for ensuring that environmental issues are addressed in the context of Asia-Pacific trade and investment liberalization. APEC has an important role to play in addressing regional scale environmental problems. APEC also offers a mechanism to support capacity building to strengthen national environmental programs and to enhance global environmental cooperation.
2. An APEC environmental program will require new structures and procedures to facilitate Asia-Pacific cooperation. In this regard, consideration should be given to a specific role for non-governmental organizations (NGOs), a standing environmental committee to address the many ecological and resource-related efforts underway within APEC, and an appropriate dispute mediation mechanism.
(more) PAGE TWO (U.S.-Japan Joint Statement)
3. Climate change is a major environmental policy challenge. Moving toward effective and efficient greenhouse gas reductions would benefit from an APEC focus on joint implementation, technology transfer, and other modes of collaboration.
4. An initiative to reduce certain subsidies may offer important opportunities to advance both trade and environmental goals -- and thus should be a priority for policymakers within APEC, the OECD, and at the multilateral level. A successful subsidies initiative requires further conceptual studies. Careful attention must be given to domestic political complexities in many countries.
5. The World Trade Organization's Committee on Trade and Environment has made little progress in reconciling trade and environmental goals. Future efforts by the CTE would benefit from a more focused mandate, increased environmental participation, and further analytical input.
6. While some trade and environmental institutions, others can be traced to problems in international environmental management. In this regard, high level attention should be given to restructuring and streamlining international environmental institutions. Proposals for a Global Environmental Organization, as endorsed by Chancellor Kohl and other world leaders at the U.N. General Assembly Special Session (Earth Summit + 5), deserve closer attention by policymakers.
7. Governments must recognize the value of engaging NGOs -- environmental groups, the business community, and other organizations -- in the APEC process, in the WTO, and in the work of other international organizations, as a source of competing ideas and analysis.
June 27, 1997
RSS