While the following summary offers a synthesis of the ideas discussed at the meeting, it does not serve as an attributable record nor does it imply full agreement among the participants.

Summary of discussions:

Most participants highlighted the link between poverty and environmental degradation. In Sub-Saharan Africa, the poor, in spite of frugal consumption patterns, bear the brunt of deforestation, loss of bio-diversity, contamination of groundwater supplies, and land degradation. As one participant put it: 'poverty is the greatest threat to environment'. Priority should therefore be placed on economic development and the sustainable use of natural resources should contribute to that objective.

With regard to the WTO, participants felt that most African countries were completely marginalised during the Uruguay Round negotiations and were mainly 'takers' of the decisions reached by the OECD countries on a 'take it or leave it' basis. At the WTO, decisions were taken on the basis of 'negative consensus' : if no country objected to a decision, it was deemed to have received consensus. However, most African countries lacked even the physical capacity to attend all WTO meetings which are sometimes held simultaneously. Limited technical expertise and financial resources also prevent them from participating actively in negotiations and making full use of the WTO dispute settlement mechanism. Finally, cross-retaliation and the absence of a mechanism to impose collective sanctions were thought to work against third world countries. However, many participants recognised that it would be worse for African countries to stay out of the WTO as they would then not be entitled to any of the concessions agreed under the multilateral trading system.

Many expressed concerns regarding industrialised countries' use of unilateral and extra-territorial trade measures for environmental purposes. Some participants also argued that environmental requirements in developed countries (eco-labelling, sanitary and phytosanitary measures and other technical barriers to trade) often contributed to further marginalise African countries since they were not in a position to fulfil these requirements. In some cases, these environmental standards were used by industrialised countries to protect their industries from competition from products manufactured in third world countries. For many participants, trade sanctions were not the best way to encourage improvements in environmental standards. African countries should therefore resist any attempts to link access to trade concessions with compliance with environmental policies which are not international (MEAs).

Most participants noted that the impact of trade liberalisation on the environment was multiple and complex. In some cases the removal of trade restrictions (tariff peaks, tariff escalation and non-tariff barriers) and distortions (environmentally harmful subsidies, particularly regarding fisheries or agriculture) applied by developed countries had the potential to yield both direct economic benefits for developing countries as well as positive environmental results. These win-win situations should be encouraged. However, in other cases, trade liberalisation could contribute to the marginalisation of the poorest -especially women- as well as to over-exploitation of natural resources and environmental degradation. This was mostly felt in the exploitation and extraction of primary commodities, and sectors such as agriculture, mining and tourism. Underpricing of forest products and market failure (prices not taking into account the environmental costs of resource use) were the major causes of forest depletion and degradation.

Participants also noted that several other issues were of particular relevance to Sub-Saharan African countries. These included the links/conflicts between the TRIPs Agreement and the Convention on Biological Diversity (patents on life forms; impact of IPR on biodiversity; farmers rights; access to genetic resources; benefit sharing; protection of indigenous knowledge, etc.); desertification and wildlife management.

Focus Areas

To address these numerous challenges, participants identified six areas of focus for the future:

1. Increased networking to influence WTO negotiations, exchange experiences, raise awareness and enhance regional co-operation.

2. Capacity-building in a number of areas, including improving negotiating skills, raising awareness about trade and environmental issues, training in wildlife management and trade, developing expertise in trade and sustainability issues in the African context, and strengthening sub-regional trade and environment treaties.

3. Better co-ordination of African policies and positions. While African countries should push for strengthening the dispute settlement mechanisms of multilateral environmental agreements, and promote policy co-ordination between MEAs and the WTO, they should uphold the WTO. s . least trade restrictive. principle, and oppose amendments to GATT Article XX, as well as denounce unilateral and extra-territorial trade measures.

4. Involvement of civil society, and making full use of its expertise, in trade policy-making, including NGOs, research institutions and the private sector. Consultative mechanisms should be established with all stakeholders in defining country positions.

5. Improving research, advocacy and information dissemination to clarify the relationship between trade liberalisation, poverty and environmental degradation. In particular, the North should be better informed about Southern sustainable development priorities.

6. Among specific themes, which should be addressed as a priority, are agriculture, desertification, wildlife management, and market access for African goods and services.