8 March 2000
Contents:
- The WTO decision against
Australian salmon quarantine laws.
- Update on Treasury Consultations
on the OECD guidelines on Multinational Enterprises.
- WTO and genetically modified
organisms.
- Coming events -May 1 and the
World Economic Forum Meeting September, Melbourne.
1) Updates on WTO decision on Australian
salmon quarantine laws.
a) The following Letter from AFTINET to editors was sent
23/2/2000. It did not get a run but the Sydney Morning Herald ran a feature story by
Andrew Darby on Sat 26/2/2000 which was good coverage of the issues and the Tasmanian
position.
"The World Trade Organisation dispute panel decision
against Australian quarantine provisions to control the spread of disease from the import
of fresh salmon (SMH 21/2, p6) sounds another warning bell about the powers of the WTO to
restrict the scope of legitimate government regulation.
The Dispute Settlement panel found in favour of a Canadian
complaint that Australian quarantine rules which required the salmon to be gilled, gutted
and in consumer-ready packaging were too restrictive for importers to comply with. This
was despite the finding of the panel that there were justified concerns about disease
spreading into Australian fisheries from the import of whole fresh salmon. The Tasmanian
government has in the meantime banned imports of fresh salmon, claiming its salmon
industry could be wiped out by imported disease. Australia now faces trade sanctions
unless it relaxes its quarantine rules.
Last year the WTO also ruled against European Union
requirements for labelling of beef containing hormones and against an industry development
grant to an Australian company exporting leather to the United States. Growing public
concern at these trends have been expressed through the successful campaign against the
Multilateral Agreement on Investment in 1998 and the demonstrations and collapse of the
Seattle WTO Ministerial Meeting in November 1999.
The aim of the WTO is to create uniform and predictable
investment conditions for business around the world. But this is eroding legitimate
regulatory standards in a forum which is beyond the reach of democratic accountability.
A wide range of community organisations, including the
Australian Conservation Council, the Australian Council of Social Services, the Australian
Council of Overseas Aid and the Australian Council of Trade Unions has formed the
Australian Fair Trade and Investment Network. The network welcomes the development of fair
trading relationships with all countries. It calls for greater public discussion and
accountability for government trade policy and for international trade negotiation
processes. It supports a critical re-assessment of the WTO framework, structures and
dispute processes. It seeks to develop a trade policy.framework which does not erode the
ability to regulate on issues of economic development, the environment and human rights.
The network can be contacted through the Public Interest
Advocacy Centre address below."
b) The chair of the Senate Rural and Regional Affairs and
Transport Committee has announced that the report on the decision to allow imports of
salmon products into Australia will be tabled on or before 16 March.
StopMAI (WA) intends to issue a media release on March 9 or
10 expressing support for the Tasmanian Parliament’s unanimous opposition to the
Commonwealth’s meek acceptance of the WTO ruling.
Copies of the draft are availalbe on the website below.
Regards, Brian Jenkins
URLs for latest official documents are at http://members.iinet.net.au/~jenks/salmon4.html#D
From: "Brian
Jenkins"
Top of page
2) OECD Guidelines on Multinational
Enterprises
Material about the proposed changes to the draft guidelines
was circulated to the AFTINET list and about 10 organisations attended the Treasury
Consultations in Sydney and Melbourne. There was widespread criticism of the non-binding
nature of the guidelines. Given that the Treasury position appears fixed, organisations
can also send their submissions to the OECD
(www.oecd.org) or to the relevant international peak bodies which are making
reperesentations direct to the OECD.
Jagjip Plahe from World Vision in Melbourne is interested
in doing a coordinated submission from a number of organisations to have more impact on
the Australian government position. She can be contacted at plahej@wva.org.au or (03) 9287 2383.
Top of page
3) WTO and Genetically modified
organisms.
The Codex Alimentarious Commission, which is the body used
by the WTO for standards on food health and safety issues, has issued a summary of the
Cartagena Biosafety Protocol on Living Modified Organisms which some NGOs claim distorts
the meaning of the protocol. If adopted by the WTO, this interpretation could limit the
ability of governments to regulate on this issue to a far greater degree than was agreed
in the Protocol.
Below is a letter which is seeking endorsements by message
to Kristin Dawkins kdawkins@iatp.org by March 7.
Unfortunately this information was only recieved yesterday.
Those interested may want to try for late endorsement or send their own letter based on
this info.
Thomas Billy
Administrator, USDA/FSIS
1400 Independence Ave, SW
Washington, D.C. 20250
TOM.BILLY@USDA.GOV
Dear Mr. Billy,
We are writing to you, as Chair of the Codex Alimentarius
Commission, in regard to the mischaracterizations of the Cartegena Protocol on Biosafety
that appear in document CX/FTB/00/3 Add, dated February 2000. We must consider these
mischaracterizations as deliberate, considering that the full document is well-known to
governments and NGOs alike. Thus, we are concerned that the Codex Secretariat and
Executive Committee are attempting to undermine the Biosafety Protocol.
This concern is substantial because Codex is recognized by
the World Trade Organization, in the text on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures, as the
presumptive body on standards for food safety. As written, the Codex summary of the
Cartagena Protocol could be viewed as preparatory to a WTO action intended to force
nations to accept GMO imports or pay penalties for lost trade revenues, contrary to the
provisions of the Protocol.
This Codex document is being circulated in advance of the
upcoming first meeting of the Ad Hoc Intergovernmental Task Force on Foods Derived from
Biotechnology on the "Review of the Work By International Organizations on the
Evaluation of the Safety and Nutrition Aspects of Foods Derived from Biotechnology."
Its attempt to reduce the Protocol’s text to 1 1/2 pages of explanation contains
major inaccuracies related to commodities, the Precautionary Principle, and the
relationship of the Protocol to the WTO - i.e., the precise issues which dominated the
Protocol negotiations that were finally resolved last month in Montreal. It is important
for Codex to act in good faith to accurately reflect the delicate balance of this
resolution. We urgently request that the existing summary document be withdrawn and an
accurate, corrected summary be distributed in its stead.
Specifically, we direct your attention to the following
inaccuracies:
The Codex document says:
"The advanced informed agreement process does not
apply to LMOs intended for direct use as food or feed, or for processing," that is,
living modified organisms which are traded as commodities.
In Fact:
The actual text of the Protocol (Article11.4) ALLOWS a
country to refuse an LMO/FFP import, under their domestic laws, based on just such a
process of information sharing and risk assessment, and the country may require actual
explicit consent in advance of introducing these LMOs. (Indeed, Article 11.6 specifically
privileges developing and Eastern European countries to do so before they even have
domestic law in place.)
The Codex document says:
The language on the handling, transport, and identification
of LMO/FFPs provides that the parties "will consider the need for developing
standards" and that "this consideration will be effected two years after the
entry into force" of the Protocol.
In Fact:
The actual text of the Protocol (Art. 18.2) requires an
identification label AT ONCE, and also stipulates that "detailed requirements for
this purpose, including specification of their identity" shall be adopted within 2
years. In other words, the "need" for special handling, transport, packaging and
identification has ALREADY been determined.
The Codex document says:
The Protocol is based on a "precautionary
approach."
In Fact:
The Protocol negotiations specifically REJECTED that
formulation. True, the "approach" is "reaffirmed," but only in the
non-operative Preamble; the substantive text of the Protocol provides (at 2 different
places, Articles 10.6 and 11.8) explicit text to operationalize the Precautionary
Principle.
The Codex document states:
"Risk assessments shall be carried out in a
scientifically sound manner taking into account risks to human health."
In Fact:
The Protocol also allows countries to consider the
socio-economic effects of importing an LMO as well (Article 26). And, of course, under the
Precautionary Principle language noted above, "lack of scientific certainty. . .
shall not prevent" a country "from taking a decision, as appropriate, with
regard to the import" of an LMO.
The Codex document says:
In regard to the Protocol and "trade agreements"
(a phrase that, in fact,does not appear in the Protocol text), that "none of them
should be subordinated to the other."
In Fact:
The Protocol actually states that nothing in the text
"is... intended to subordinate this Protocol to other international agreements."
There is, in fact, no language that prevents the WTO agreements, for example, from being
subordinated to the Protocol. Countries that are parties to both agreements have accepted
the Protocol as the superior instrument as regards to the subject matter therein.
As a result of these mischaracterizations, document
CZ/FBT/00/3 Add. is quite distorted and misleading, and fails to convey an accurate view
of the Cartagena Protocol to its readers by reaching conclusions that are not supported by
the facts. Thus, it cannot well serve the attendees at the upcoming meeting who may not
know the Protocol’s actual provisions. We, therefore, respectfully ask that a new
truthful document be issued in its place. Many of the signatories below will be at the
meeting in Chiba, Japan, and will be following the future work of Codex, especially
regarding genetically engineered foods. We pledge to be vigilant in protecting the
integrity of the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety.
Very truly yours,
Philip L. Bereano, Council for Responsible Genetics
Washington Biotechnology Action Council, USA
Kristin Dawkins, Institute for Agriculture and Trade
Policy, USA
Rodney E. Leonard, Community Nutrition Institute, USA.
Top of page
4) Coming Events
a) A rally on the theme of corporate power is being
organised in Sydney on May 1 by a coalition of student and union orgnanisations. Further
details are available from jgoodman@uts.edu.au
b) In September the World Economic Forum will hold the
Asia-Pacific Economic Summit, "Asia/Pacific in the 21st Century: Leveraging the new
drivers of growth", in Melbourne. The Summit is jointly sponsored by the Business
Council of Australia and the Australian Davos Connection (the Australian arm of the World
Economic Forum) and will take place at the Crown Casino, September 11-13.
The World Economic Forum is an organisation made up of the
1000 richest global companies. It holds summits every February inthe Swiss mountain resort
town of Davos with a restricted invited list of politicians, academics and influential
media.
The S11 alliance is organising alternative events and
protests against the neo-liberal policies promoted by the World Economic Forum.
Contact the s11 alliance at s11@hotmail.com for more information.
Top of
page |
