Biotechnology and the multilateral trading system
The multilateral trading system is in real danger. And negotiators, public officials and civil society from around the world seem to be disregarding this. They are letting inertia, and legaloid meandering, strip away the system from its usefulness and relevance.
The latest culprit? The overblown ‘biosecurity’ menace put forward by the ‘immoral,’ ‘vicious’ and ‘greedy’ biotechnology multinationals. The contention is that with their ‘reckless’ flooding of international markets with diverse biotechnology products, they constitute the most refined form of ‘Frankenstein’ science that, along with an open system of trade, will produce catastrophes of a global scale; from food security to biodiversity loss and social instability.
If this were really true, what should we all do about it?
If the current strategy of several key players in this controversial debate sheds any light on this matter, the answer would be to introduce the ‘precautionary principle’ into the exceptions provisions of the WTO. Should we do that? Lets explore this question.
It is, of course, true that there is a long history of scientific ‘breakthroughs’ that, in due time, reveal their sinister side. It could be that the biotechnology boom may prove to be more of a nuisance than a blessing. And of course, civil society has a duty to point this out and help exhaust every source of doubt, however minimal. And it is the purpose of public policy to develop and enforce regulation that offsets any undesired effects on society as a whole of any technological advances. Furthermore, if a transboundary, regional or global case appears, public policy must address this on the appropriate level.
A first step in addressing the potential “sinister” side of biotechnology on a global scale is the Convention on Biodiversity’s (CBD) Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety, which includes the ‘precautionary approach’ to decision-making regarding potential biosecurity hazards, even if the relevant decision relates to trade. This is a remarkable and major triumph in the development of multilateral environmental agreements (MEAs).
But it seems that in many circles of organized civil society, the Cartagena Protocol (or for that matter, most environmental agreements) does not amount to much. It is true that major players are not even parties to the CBD, and there is a perception that the Multinational Biotechnology ‘menace’ has several more degrees of magnitude than the global ‘institutional remedy’ to that ‘menace’. But there have been success stories in global environmental agreements, and the Cartagena Protocol could be one of them with enough support and scrutiny from civil society. It would represent an unforgivable mistake on all sides not to take co-operation efforts like the Cartagena Protocol and other MEA to their full potential. Nevertheless, we recognize that more than that needs to be done; and here is where the Multilateral Trade System comes into play. But what should be done?
We believe that what needs to be done is to clarify the relationship between the multilateral trading system and multilateral environmental agreements, which use trade measures to be effective. This could mean that certain ‘approaches’ or ‘principles’ that countries agreed to on a specific environmental matter should be fully recognized, in one way or another, within the multilateral trading system. This seems a balanced and powerful initiative to foster better environmental performance of the trade regime. However, little has been advanced since the issue appeared in the Doha Development Agenda. The excuse of ‘no negotiation until agriculture’ has been used to sideline important issues relevant to all countries and, in many cases, these issues have gone directly to dispute settlement instead of the negotiating table.
With the current dispute between the European Union and the United States, Argentina and Canada regarding genetically modified organisms (GMOs), the potential for clarification on the role of the precautionary principle or approach in the WTO looms as a distinct possibility. This in spite of the fact that in their preliminary report issued to the contending parties last February, the WTO failed to tackle most of the issues at stake, including the probability of using whatever principle beyond ‘risk assessment’ for any moratorium decision, and only focused on procedural matters. The final ruling of this dispute is yet to appear (though it was due for release in April), but there is concern that contrary to what has happened until recently, where preliminary reports in all WTO disputes had matched the final rulings, this case may be strongly influenced by public opinion and the final report may establish some kind of decision on the crucial matter of legitimizing the precautionary principle in WTO disciplines. It is worrisome that this would occur without any negotiations on the part of the WTO membership as a whole. The point is: there is a strong possibility for a major precedent to be set that could change the way trade is conducted, but in the absence of debate and negotiations within potentially affected parties.
How crucial is this potential precedent? It is worth noting that no system based on non-discrimination and equal treatment can function under the principle of ‘precaution.’ If the multilateral trading system has any value for its Members, it is its reliance on non-discrimination. Any deviation from this principle, which is the basis of the whole Trade System, should at least be the result of debate and negotiations amongst the entire WTO membership, and not the result of a single case of dispute settlement.
On the other side, it is also a fact that environmental agreements cannot function without discrimination. That is why negotiation is so important, and hence the issue of clarifying the relationship between the WTO and MEA. Unfortunately, after the initial thrust from organized civil society (see Seattle in 1999 for example) that helped put the environment within the negotiating agenda at WTO, follow – up has dwindled and what little remains of the efforts from civil society have gone instead to influence dispute settlement outcomes.
This shift in strategy from many civil society organizations has two awkward results for global environmental stewardship.
First, this shift in strategy tends to focus on the multilateral trading system as one of two extremes: either a ‘solution to all problems,’ or an ‘entity of evil.’ The first vision tries to induce substantive change to the system (such as the introduction of the precautionary principle). On the other hand, proponents of the second vision works to undermine the system. The result, in the best of cases, will be a dysfunctional and irrelevant multilateral trading system as well as an incompetent multilateral environmental system.
Second, this shift in strategy diverts attention away from MEA by disregarding them up front. MEA are the best tool for global environmental stewardship that we have as of now. True, MEA are perfectible; yet, the key contribution from civil society to make them at least effective in some degree, —engaging in close participation and scrutiny—has practically disappeared.
There is no doubt that biotechnology—and its potential crimes and misdemeanors—is a major concern with respect to the need to safeguard both the environment and trade. However, biotechnology should not be an excuse to disregard environmental negotiations and eventual agreements. And it must not be a stumbling block towards a more fair and equitable negotiated multinational trading system. Furthermore, it should serve as a reminder for organized civil society that more involvement and scrutiny is necessary if we want a better system of environmental governance and a more accountable way of managing its relationships to the trade system.
