Dear Sir/Madam:

The National Wildlife Federation (NWF) is pleased to provide the following comments in response to the “Open Invitation to Civil Society in FTAA Participating Countries” (September 2000). We appreciate this important opportunity to present our comments on the critical relationship between trade and the environment in the FTAA. Our comments are substantially based on previous submissions to the CGR and we look forward to a constructive dialogue and meaningful response to the issues raised in our comments.

The National Wildlife Federation is the United States’ largest not-for-profit conservation education and advocacy organization with over 4 million members and supporters. NWF’s interest in trade and the environment is based, in part, on the premise that trade liberalization has the potential to contribute in a significant manner to improving the quality of life of all peoples as we collectively strive to build a sustainable future. At the same time, NWF recognizes that trade liberalization alone will not meet the ambitious goals of sustainable development. FTAA negotiations must strive to balance the demands of market liberalization with the need to address environmental concerns and the potential environmental impacts of increased market integration.

Trade and environment are inexorably linked. The FTAA partners and the members of the World Trade Organization (WTO) recognize the reality and the importance of the trade and environment linkage. The San Jose Fourth Ministerial Declaration (March 1998) states as a General Objective “To strive to make our trade liberalization and environmental policies mutually supportive, taking into account work undertaken by the WTO and other international organizations.”

In light of the discussions regarding trade and environment at the WTO and in other international fora, we must note with concern the significant lack of progress in addressing environmental issues within the FTAA process. The absence of a specific work agenda and lack of precisely defined role for the CGR within the FTAA process raises serious questions regarding the current and future impact of the CGR as an effective vehicle for public input in the FTAA negotiations.

Despite these significant reservations regarding the current CGR process, we proffer our comments as part of our effort to contribute to the advancement of a constructive agenda for sustainable trade and investment in the FTAA negotiations. We respectfully request that these comments be viewed as the beginning of an ongoing open process in which public input will be considered at later junctures and we look forward to discussing these issues and others in greater detail with all FTAA government officials as the negotiations progress. While we have attempted to identify key environment and trade areas that merit priority attention, the views expressed are not intended to be a comprehensive review of all our concerns and we anticipate providing further comments as this dynamic and flexible process evolves.

We believe that the FTAA negotiations have the potential to support a hemispheric integration process consistent with the vision articulated by the 1994 Miami Summit to link the advancement of human prosperity to three fundamental principles: social progress, economic prosperity, and a healthy environment. While we agree strongly with these goals, we remain concerned that the initial principles and negotiating objectives articulated in the San Jose Declaration fail to encourage the kind of trading relationship that promotes healthy economies and cleaner environments.

The Miami Declaration states:

Social progress and economic prosperity can be sustained only if our people live in a healthy environment and our ecosystems and natural resources are managed carefully and responsibly.... We will advance our social well-being and economic prosperity in ways that are fully cognizant of our impact on the environment.

Regrettably, to date, few concrete steps have been taken to ensure that environmental issues are addressed by the FTAA. In contrast, it appears that resistance to integrating trade and sustainable development in the FTAA has grown. For example, it is our understanding that a decision to consider creating a Study Group on Trade and the Environment (Cartagena Ministerial Declaration, Cartagena Colombia, March 21, 1996) was rejected at the Fourth Trade Ministerial (San Jose, Costa Rica, May 1998). In addition, specific opportunities for raising environmental concerns directly in negotiating sectors have yet to be identified. As a result, the only remaining official avenue for consideration of environmental implications in the FTAA appears to be the CGR.

The National Wildlife Federation has consistently advocated to improve the FTAA process, not to disparage it. We will strive to continue on that course, but we must begin to see immediate progress on the environmental dimensions of the FTAA.

We want the international trading system to succeed. We also want trade to fulfill its true potential. We want trade to deliver on its promise of improving our quality of life. We want trade to raise living standards, including respect for conservation values throughout the world.

To achieve this goal the National Wildlife Federation has established an agenda for environmentally responsible trade. The outlines of that agenda can be stated simply:

1. Improve FTAA Deference to National Environmental Standards and Multilateral Environmental Agreements (MEAs):

Trade rules must be crafted so they do not diminish the environmental protections that nations have provided for their citizens and resources. Each FTAA member country must retain the right to develop and enforce high conservation measures through trade measures C even if they exceed the international norm C without running afoul of FTAA rules.

The FTAA must allow for appropriate deference to national regulatory authorities in the development of high environmental standards that treat foreign and domestic producers alike -- even if they exceed relevant international standards. The North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) made limited and certainly not complete progress in certain areas and we have referenced specific NAFTA language in relevant sectors. The FTAA will have to improve on NAFTA’s environmental components in order to earn public support. Specifically, in matters addressing Sanitary and Phytosanitary measures, Technical Barriers to Trade, and other FTAA negotiations:

<   The FTAA should explicitly recognize the Precautionary Principle and allow FTAA countries to adopt environmental, health,
     and safety measures in instances where the scientific evidence is insufficient to determine the actual risk posed by a given
     product or service. (See, e.g., NAFTA, Art. 715.4, 907.3)

2. Allow Countries to Distinguish Between Products Based on the Way They Are Produced:

The FTAA should permit each party to make distinctions concerning market access based partially on the environmental impacts of production, as long as there is no clear and convincing violation of national treatment. Laws that address the environmental impact of how products are made (such as the U.S. import ban on shrimp harvested by trawl nets that kill endangered sea turtles), must be accepted as a valid part of trade rules. For example, trade rules should allow countries to label products or restrict the importation of products that are produced or brought to market in a way that harms endangered species and/or the global commons.

At a minimum, the FTAA should explicitly state that ecolabeling programs that take into account the environmental impact of production are permissible. Such a policy on ecolabeling would reflect the position that multilateral trade rules should provide sufficient flexibility to permit all forms of ecolabeling.

A broad and comprehensive assessment of trade-related social and environmental effects, initiated well in advance of any future FTAA negotiations, is necessary to assess the positive and negative environmental implications of trade liberalization. We believe that the appropriate application of environmental assessments early on in the negotiations can help identify relevant impacts, establish preventive and mitigative measures, and proffer reasonable alternative actions. Environmental assessments could also strengthen public participation in FTAA negotiations by making the best use of NGO and other civil society inputs and experiences involving trade liberalization impacts in the Western Hemisphere.

Although many nationally-based and project specific EIAs traditionally undertaken in the hemisphere share similar features, in order to maximize the utility of EIAs to trade negotiators, FTAA partners should explore common experiences with EIAs to develop a set of shared EIA principles. Key elements of an effective environmental assessment for an FTAA should promote:

<    broader participation, including involvement of the public, legislatures, and executive branch agencies with environmental
      responsibilities, in the development of a more balanced hemispheric trade policy through a timely, open, transparent, and
      responsive environmental review process.

4. Eliminate Environmentally Perverse Subsidies and Promote Trade in Environmental Technologies: Renewed attention and energy must be devoted to delivering eminently achievable “win-win” solutions relating to trade and the environment. For example, the elimination of perverse and environmentally damaging subsidies in natural resource sectors such as fisheries and forest products may result in positive gains for both the environment and trade. Nonetheless, the timing and transition efforts must be carefully managed so as to avoid short-term dislocations. In addition, efforts should be made in the FTAA to facilitate the trade in environmental technologies. While not a cure-all to the resolution of all trade and environment conflicts, eliminating environmentally destructive subsidies and fostering trade in clean technology would represent a positive step forward.

A significant step towards achieving a comprehensive trade and environment policy in FTAA negotiations is a recognition that the old, exclusive and secretive deal making process of trade negotiations must give way to an inclusive, transparent, and democratic process. The negotiating strategies pursued by the FTAA trading partners must reflect this new reality. At the beginning of the twentieth century, President Wilson denounced secret deals, secretly arrived at. It is past time to follow through with a process that takes fully into account the views of developing as well as developed countries and of citizens and citizen groups as well as those of industry and government officials from all countries. The era of international trade negotiations being insulated from public concerns, including respect for the environment, is over.

Institutions that govern public conduct must be accountable to the public. The FTAA must adopt modern, democratic principles of due process, including the right of the public to review and comment on the written record of future trade disputes, access to working documents and a permanent role for nongovernmental organizations in future FTAA activities.

Therefore, with an eye towards the reintegration of sustainable development priorities in trade agreements via the CGR and/or other mechanisms, we urge the FTAA negotiators to adopt and implement the following recommendations as essential components of the trade negotiations.

A general objective on public participation sends a strong signal to participating countries and to business interests that democratic decisionmaking is integral to good trade and investment policy. In order for the CGR process to earn the confidence of people in the hemisphere, it must give priority attention to social and environmental concerns as part of its primary agenda. In addition, the CGR must ensure that civil society comments are being properly balanced with those from business interests, and perhaps, most importantly, the CGR must establish a mechanism in the FTAA which adequately incorporates the views of civil society directly into the individual negotiating groups. The performance of this Committee should be given as high a priority as the Trade Negotiations Committee, the Committee on Small Economies and the individual Negotiating group sectors.

While several members of the business community enjoy the financial resources, technical skills, and personal and professional relationships required to engage government officials in useful policy dialogue, citizen groups -- especially those working in emerging economy nations -- frequently do not possess such resources. To overcome these obstacles to effective participation, we have recommended in the past the creation of a work plan that includes (1) establishment of an information clearing house; (2) establishment of national advisory committees; (3) the promotion of research, training and capacity building; and (4) funding for civil society participation in the FTAA negotiations.

c. Define Information Disclosure Policies and Facilitate the Derestriction of Relevant Documents.

The results of the first round of negotiations in Miami made little concrete progress in promoting transparency in the FTAA negotiations. We again urge the FTAA negotiators to define information disclosure policies as a means to ensure public participation in the negotiations. Specifically, we believe the following “classes” or types of documents might be candidates for derestriction as an important first step in empowering civil society in a process to encourage “constructive” comments during FTAA negotiations:

We strongly urge you to release a document describing the information disclosure policies to be utilized under the FTAA and to consider developing it into a comprehensive public document which would also integrate public consultation guidelines.

As we have stated in the past, the establishment of the CGR as a forum to provide civil society with an opportunity to comment on the FTAA process is a step in the right direction. We acknowledge and appreciate the challenge the negotiators faced in the creation of the CGR and will continue to face in maintaining the Committee as a viable and meaningful public participation vehicle.

Nevertheless, in order for the CGR to successfully function as one of several potentially appropriate vehicles for ensuring that public participation and environmental protection are integrated into the context of trade negotiations, the CGR must adopt several important components into the core of its work program. These components include: 1) an opportunity for public dialogue including proactive efforts on behalf of the CGR to actively encourage public involvement in its activities; 2) the development of a comprehensive information disclosure policy and related communications policy; 3) providing creative funding mechanisms for citizen groups throughout the hemisphere which currently lack the financial and technical resources to engage fully in consultations; and, 4) clear and measurable operational procedures which indicate how civil society concerns will be addressed within the context of the negotiations.

We believe that the following recommendations represent a starting point to assist in the development of a comprehensive work plan to advance a Western Hemisphere agenda on trade and sustainable development.

The complexity and political sensitivity of many regional environmental problems call for solid transnational collaboration. More information is required, for example, to identify habitats and resources in need of protection, to assess the human and environmental impact of environmental threats, to identify environmentally sound policies, to adjudicate disputes over boundaries, on the environmental impacts of trade, and concerns over sovereignty, in the context of the Western Hemisphere.

X     Draw on lessons learned from examining the effectiveness of existing multinational institutions which have already started
       addressing the linkages between trade and the environment. We thus, urge the FTAA negotiators to examine the different
       approaches used by some of these institutions. While more analysis needs to be done on the different approaches used
       by the institutions such as the International Joint Commission, the Organization of American States and the North
       American Free Trade Agreement’s (NAFTA) environmental institutions in making, monitoring and enforcing international
       policies as well as in national capacity building, the FTAA negotiators would undoubtedly benefit from evaluating the
       results of these institutions and in addressing environmental concerns.

The hemispheric scope of the FTAA creates significant opportunities for parallel hemispheric environmental cooperation that should be pursued vigorously in tandem with the FTAA process. The increased market integration accompanying the FTAA negotiations creates an important opening to develop cooperative mechanisms to address the myriad environmental challenges of the hemisphere, many of which, such as biodiversity protection and forest management, have global implications.

* * *

Thank you for the opportunity to submit these comments and we look forward to working with you to incorporate these views into the FTAA process.