WSSD PrepCom Fails On Trade, Some Progress On Fisheries And MEAs

Delegates at the fourth and last official preparatory meeting (PrepCom IV, 27 May - 7 June, Bali, Indonesia) for the forthcoming World Summit on Sustainable Development (WSSD, 26 August - 1 September) fell far short of their intended goal to finalise the Plan of Implementation for WSSD, with issues related to trade and finance proving to be some of the biggest stumbling blocks. Progress was made on some trade-related biodiversity issues when delegates reached agreement on language regarding fisheries subsidies and the relationship between the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) and WTO rules. While some civil society groups welcomed delegates' failure to finalise the text, saying that an unfinished text was better than a bad deal, others expressed concern that the lack of progress might have a detrimental impact on high-level and public support of and interest in the WSSD process.

Some movement on MEA-WTO relationship

Delegates agreed on a formulation on the relationship between the CBD and agreements related to trade and intellectual property rights, settling on "enhancing synergy and mutual supportiveness". This language represented a compromise between the US and Australia, which had wanted to restrict references to "mutual supportiveness" as used in the WTO Ministerial Declaration adopted in Doha last year, and other countries, which had proposed language used in CBD decisions. According to several source, the inclusion of the concept of "synergy" was important to encourage active cooperation and to ensure that decisions taken in other intergovernmental processes are at least on equal footing with WTO rules and that the mandate of these processes was taken into account in the WTO negotiations.

However, in the context of section X on an "Institutional Framework for Sustainable Development", delegates failed to agree on a formulation regarding the relationship between multilateral environmental agreements (MEAs) and WTO rules, leaving various options in the text, including coherence, complementarity, coordination, no hierarchy and mutual supportiveness (see BRIDGES Trade BioRes, 3 June 2002). The MEA-WTO issue will again be taken up in Johannesburg as part of the implementation text and is also expected to be proposed as an element in the political declaration by the EU.

Also of relevance in the trade context is the still bracketed (i.e. unresolved) proposal by megadiverse developing countries to negotiate "an international regime to effectively promote and safeguard the fair and equitable sharing of benefits arising from the use of biodiversity and its components". The establishment of such a legally-binding regime has long been advocated by several developing countries, NGOs and indigenous peoples, most recently at the Sixth Conference of the Parties to the CBD where it was raised, inter alia, by Cameroon on the behalf of the African Group, Ethiopia and the Philippines (see BRIDGES Trade BioRes, 18 April 2002). One observer noted, however, that this provision was unlikely to be included in the final document given the strong resistance of the US, EU and some developing countries.

One small gain on fisheries

Civil society groups claimed one small victory in the area of trade and environment when delegates tentatively agreed to "eliminate subsidies that contribute to illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing and to over-capacity". As some pointed out, this language went far beyond the mandate on fisheries subsidies agreed at Doha which simply instructs WTO Members to begin negotiations with the "aim to clarify and improve WTO disciplines on fisheries subsidies". These negotiations are currently underway in the WTO Negotiating Group on Rules (see BRIDGES Trade BioRes, 16 May 2002).

Given the reluctance by some countries, in particular the EU, to commit to strong language on subsidies in the trade-related implementation discussions at PrepCom IV (see BRIDGES Trade BioRes, 3 June 2002), many expressed surprise that the provision on fisheries was adopted. Indeed, the reduction of subsidies that contribute to overcapacity continues to be a contentious issue within the EU in the context of the recently proposed reform to the Common Fisheries Policies (CFP), with the so-called 'Friends of Fishing' -- made up of France, Spain, Italy, Portugal, Greece and Ireland -- most unwilling to reduce subsidies (see related In Brief, this issue). Japan and Korea have also traditionally been opposed to strong language on fisheries subsidies in related discussions at the WTO. As one source speculated, the language used in the provision might have found support by all countries, as it was sufficiently vague to allow for different interpretations of how to implement it. Another observer also pointed out that the agreement was reached due to growing awareness among many countries regarding the significant contribution subsidies can make to overexploitation of fisheries resources.

Trade discussions end in deadlock

Efforts continued in the second week of PrepCom IV to narrow down the substantial differences between countries on issues related to trade and finance in section IX of the text on Implementation (see BRIDGES Trade BioRes, 3 June 2002). Negotiations finally broke down on Friday when delegates failed to reach an agreement and decided to forward the extensively bracketed text to Johannesburg. NGOs largely blamed the intransigent position of the US, Australia and Canada -- in particular their refusal to move beyond the agreed language of Doha and Monterrey -- for the failure to reach a compromise, with some describing these three countries as the "Axis of Environmental Evil". Others also speculated that developing countries held out for so long because they had considerably more bargaining power in the WSSD context than during negotiations in Doha and Monterrey. That is, developing countries had little to gain from an agreement that imposed additional environment-related obligations and conditions on how to use ODA and conduct trade, but did not provide additional financial support and/or increased trading opportunities. Some furthermore noted that the lack of progress reflected the difficulties in integrating the three pillars of sustainable development, with little coordination between those dealing with trade (Doha), finance (Monterrey) and environment/foreign affairs (PrepCom IV).

From Bali to Johannesburg

Informal talks on trade and finance issues are expected to be held in New York in July. Also, a pre-summit meeting -- most likely symbolic rather than substantive -- has been scheduled for the end of June in Brazil to muster political support for WSSD (see BRIDGES Trade BioRes, 3 June 2002). In addition, PrepCom Chair Emil Salim (Indonesia) was nominated to conduct further informal consultations in the lead-up to WSSD, including preparing elements for a political declaration to be released later this month. Some suggested that the current impasse on the most contentious issues, including the various trade references and the MEA-WTO relationship, might be resolved by taking the provisions related to these issues out of the implementation document and moving them into the political declaration.

In the lead-up to WSSD, civil society groups are likely to use the current deadlock to step up their efforts to raise awareness amongst delegates and the general public regarding the 'limits' of globalisation. As several NGO sources noted, PrepCom IV has highlighted a growing awareness among the sustainable development community that the "blind pursuit" of trade liberalisation needed to be checked. As a number of sources agreed, the added value of WSSD and its influence on related discussions in other fora, including the WTO, might not lie in the details of the texts to be adopted in Johannesburg, but rather in encouraging the questioning of the underlying paradigms of globalisation and the legitimisation of anti-globalisation concerns through the intergovernmental process of WSSD.

The Draft Plan of Implementation and other relevant documents of the meeting are available at http://www.johannesburgsummit.org. For daily coverage of the meeting, see IISD Linkages.

ICTSD reporting; ENB Vol. 22 No. 41, 10 June 2002.