Biological Diversity and the Battle in Seattle
[ 1, 2 ]

The actions taken by the WTO since its inception have clearly shown that they have had a blatant disregard for improving environmental conditions no matter what their official "policies" may be. There were two such examples recently where the World Trade Organization had the opportunity to improve environmental conditions, but instead decided to hurt the environment through either endless regulations or inactivity.

In the first example, back in 1996 the United States Government had passed a Clean Air Act in which only cleaner gasolines could be used. The thought was that improving the quality of gasoline in the country en masse would eventually lead to cleaner air throughout the United States due to less pollutants being emitted into the atmosphere. However, the WTO ruled that these gasoline cleanliness standards violated trade rules because it did not allow Venezuelan gasoline--with higher concentrations of pollutants--into the country.

A second example is the WTO's policy towards the harvesting of timber. An enormous threat to biodiversity is the clear-cutting of timber as it leads to erosion and the destruction of species' natural habitats. What the World Trade Organization has not done is devise a policy towards harvesting timber. In their position as a major trading power, this is disappointing to say the least. Furthermore, while countries are allowed to try and devise their own harvesting rules they are not allowed to discriminate by basing their trading partner for timber solely on the country's clear-cutting policy.

In addition to failing to be productive in cases where their regulations could easily help reduce the loss of biodiversity on this planet, the WTO has also been known to go out of their way to be environmentally destructive whenever profits dictate it to be beneficial. An example of this is the recent WTO policy regarding dolphins. The Earth Island Institute states that "The issue of dolphins being drowned in nets set for tuna is a tragic example of how trade politics and the World Trade Organization (WTO) influence is prompting the Clinton Administration and Congress to override hard-won U.S. environmental laws."

Since 1990, cans of tuna in Canada and the United States have had a "dolphin safe" label on them but the meaning of the labels may soon change as the WTO fights to lower standards defining what is and what is not, in fact, "dolphin safe." With the support of the WTO, big corporations in the tuna trading countries of Mexico, Colombia and Venezuela in 1997 made an attempt to open United States markets to dolphin-deadly tuna as they teamed up with free trade advocates. Their efforts were successful. Earlier this year U.S. Commerce secretary William Daley announced an agreement to weaken the federal definition of the "dolphin safe" that appears on the tuna labels-citing bogus facts that netting dolphins does not cause significant detrimental impacts on the dolphin population.

The bureaucracy of the World Trade Organization also favors larger corporations and the dollars they bring as opposed to the general public at large. "Trade challenges are decided in secret by dispute settlement panels comprised of three individuals. The WTO has a list of eligible panelists who must have experience in trade matters and who generally are former trade officials. Few have any training or experience in health or environmental disciplines," states members of ONE/Northwest, an environmentalist group in the Pacific Northwest. "Only WTO countries have a right to submit briefs and attend the panel proceedings. The public is entirely shut out of the process."

The World Trade Organization, in fact, has yet to uphold a single trade restriction based on an environmental protection measure. According to a GATT (General Agreement on Trades and Tariffs) Secretariat report, "In principle, it is not possible under GATT's rules to make access to one's own market dependent on the domestic environmental policies or practices of the exporting country."

The attitude that free trade is more important than anything else, including the environment, is quite possibly the main threat existing to environmental policy. Without question, the creation of the World Trade Organization has benefited corporations and their economic bottom line, but at what cost? One of the primary victims--if not the primary victim--has been the environment and the crumbling standards taken to protect it.

There are numerous ways to counteract the decline in biodiversity, but it starts with those who have the most power to change the destructive environmental policies within society. For the World Trade Organization, in a broad sense it means that they must do all they can within their power to enact--and enforce--policies that will improve living conditions around the world. The second step, and most likely the most difficult, is when the situation calls for it they need to let profits take a back seat to environmental considerations.

In general, the types of policies that must be devised include operating within the Earth's carrying capacity, using sustainable development--that is, maximizing the potential of a resource without limiting its availability to future generations--and creating policies such as limiting greenhouse gas emissions. We must do all we can to attempt to improve the conditions of the Earth and return the environment to its prior state.

"The river is like our refrigerator that keeps fresh the meat," said Paiakan, a Kayapo Indian, as quoted in Wisdom of the Elders by David Suzuki. "The forest is like our drug store that has our medicine. It is like a supermarket with all of the food and things we need. Why would we poison our water or clear the forest?"