Is the World Trade Organization Environmentally Sustainable?
The World Trade Organisation - one of the most powerful multilateral institutions in the world - prides itself on promoting, in the words of its Director-General, a "strong and prosperous international trading system" that has contributed to "unprecedented global economic growth".
Its mission is to "encourage and contribute to sustainable development, raise people’s welfare, reduce poverty, and foster peace and stability". However, what lies behind this glossy exterior is an organisation which perpetuates and fosters environmental degradation to a staggering degree.
The WTO seeks to limit the capacity of its members to control the market. For instance, members are banned from using government purchasing policies to promote environmentally friendly or socially beneficial products or industries. Products, even incredibly environmentally damaging ones, must therefore be given the same market freedom. In the 1990s, the US tried to ban the import of Mexican tuna as it was not dolphin-friendly. However, under WTO legislation they were not allowed to, as it of course went against free market principles.
The WTO can also be held to account by practically no-one, undermining the democratic institution. On one occasion European countries tried to ban fur imports from countries which used steel jaw leg-hold traps to catch bears. These traps tear the bear’s leg, face, abdomen or tail, leaving the bear in so much pain that they can mutilate themselves trying to escape and die an agonising death. But Russia, Canada and the US successfully argued that the ban would unfairly hit foreign imports, so Europe were forced to back down: democratically elected European governments were prevented from taking environmental action by the WTO.
Under WTO law, practices have to be shown to be unsafe in order to be restricted. This is the equivalent of ‘innocent until proven guilty’, but is the wrong way when it comes to environmental protection – especially as the WTO has no inclination or requirement to consult experts in the field. For example, a European programme was designed to make electronics manufacturers cut down on toxic waste and remove dangerous and contaminating chemicals such as lead, mercury and cadmium, but this restricted trade in heavy metals, and the WTO decided to deem the science behind the toxicity of these chemicals unreliable. Under great pressure from industry and the US, the European programme was greatly diluted.
It is also highly questionable whether the organisation really aims to "raise people’s welfare" and "reduce poverty". In the late 1990s, for instance, it ruled against a European proposal to favour small local banana farms in former European colonies in the Caribbean. This, of course, would restrict free trade. As a result, small farms have collapsed against competition from industrial agriculture giants Chiquita and Dole. Impoverished countries also have less money, expertise and influence to defend themselves against the WTO, leaving public health and the environment extremely vulnerable.
What should be clear through these limited examples is that while we think our governments have the power to protect the environment and promote global equality, in reality they are constrained quite considerably by an overarching, unaccountable and undemocratic institution which perpetuates wealth accumulation, poverty and environmental degeneration.
Conal Dougan
