世界貿易組織宣言罔顧環境與森林問題：世界貿易組織在破壞環境的新議題上達成共識 (上)

ENVIRONMENT, FORESTS LOSE GROUND WITH WTO DECLARATION:
WTO agrees to new issues damaging to the environment

　　世界貿易組織（WTO，以下簡稱世貿組織）這次在多哈舉行的部長會議，雖然並沒有進行新一回合的綜合性談判，可以讓全體公民社會成員暫時先鬆一口氣；但是值得注意的是，確定即將展開談判的新議題，非常有可能是環境破壞的毒瘤。在延長的會議中，142國與會的貿易部長連袂發表一篇部長宣言，雖然文中對於工業國家所熱衷的新一回合談判，並沒有著墨太多；不過，因而擬定的工作計畫中所涵蓋的新貿易與投資措施，卻會造成森林、環保標準和永續發展的傷害。

　　儘管這次會議有些許的斬獲，特別是針對漁業補助方面；但是，世貿組織談判代表的做法，卻再次證明：這個組織是冥頑不靈的，同時也無力確保「貿易不損及環境保護的考量」。在這次的多哈會議後，環境終究還是輸家。

多哈會議結果，對於環境來說是否有利：

1.不利：引進對抗環保的訴訟案例

　　目前世貿組織正計畫在未來數年內，進行一項多邊投資協定的談判，這項作法很可能會讓世貿組織的投資法規向北美自由貿易協定（NAFTA）的第11章看齊。這一章言明，外國企業若覺得他們的獲利度受損，便可對當地政府提出訴訟。這種「投資人對國家」的訴訟，讓外國企業擁有極大的權力，這是當地人民與投資者只能望其項背。

2.不利：砍樹更多、保育更少

　　目前世貿組織正要開始新的談判，研議要廣泛的廢除關稅與非關稅措施（通常是指法律與管制辦法）。這項做法會導致重要森林地區再度面對擴大開發的威脅，並讓當地政府無法以政策工具來保護森林。1999年的西雅圖部長會議當中，「全球自由伐木協定」就已引起相當大的爭論，該協定會直接威脅到印尼、馬來西亞與智利的原生林。再者，在類似擴大市場通路的貿易談判中，各國政府原本可運用的環保策略，例如：採用生態標章和認證，以及禁止原木出口等等，都可能遭到非難。

3.不利：鼓勵興建掩埋場與焚化爐

　　目前，世貿組織打算藉著消除關稅與非關稅的措施，讓有毒廢棄物掩埋場、焚化爐與供水事業（因為他們算是「環保產業」）的相關工業大舉發展。對於把這構想編進環境項目一事，真是再諷刺不過。這些產業的自由化，將會使當地政府無法對特定區域內該類設施的數量總額進行限量管制。

【文章連載】
　■WTO在破壞環境的新議題上達成共識 (上)　(下)

本文譯自 Global Alliance for Incinerator Alternatives，http://www.no-burn.org/

環境資訊電子報／綠色公民行動聯盟／看守台灣協會 共同策劃（環境資訊電子報 陳潁峰 譯，黃媺雯 審校）

中英對照全文：http://e-info.org.tw/issue/ecoeco
/2002/ec02031401.htm　

Though civil society can be somewhat relieved that a comprehensive New Round was not launched at the World Trade Organization's (WTO) Doha Ministerial, new issues have been identified for negotiation that will likely mean setbacks for the environment. In the overtime hours of the meeting, the trade ministers of 142 countries stitched together a Ministerial Declaration that fell significantly short of the ambitious New Round that industrialized countries had sought. Yet, the resulting workplan embraces new trade and investment measures that will cause harm to forests, environmental standards, and sustainable development.

While small gains have been made, particularly in the area of fisheries subsidies, WTO negotiators again have demonstrated that the organization is badly off-course and incapable of ensuring that trade deals do not undermine environmental concerns. In the end, the environment lost much more than it gained in Doha.

Doha's environmental outcome:

1. LOSS: USHERING IN LAWSUITS AGAINST ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION.
Negotiations on a multilateral agreement on investment are planned to begin in a couple of years. This may lead to investment rules that resemble those of North American Free Trade Agreement's (NAFTA's) Chapter 11, which allows foreign corporations to sue governments if they feel their ability to make a profit has been harmed. These investor-to-state lawsuits provide corporations with rights far above those of citizens or domestic investors.

2. LOSS: MORE LOGGING, LESS FOREST PROTECTION.
Initiating negotiations on the comprehensive elimination of tariffs and non-tariff measures (NTMs, commonly known as laws and regulations) revives the possibility of increased exploitation of critical forest areas and elimination of the availability of public policy tools to protect forests. This "Global Free Logging Agreement" was a significant issue at the 1999 Seattle Ministerial, and poses a threat to ancient forests in Indonesia, Malaysia, and Chile. Further, strategies for environmental conservation, such as eco-labeling, certification, and bans on raw log exports, could come under fire in these market access negotiations.

3. LOSS: PROMOTING LANDFILLS AND INCINERATORS.
Ironically woven into a section on the environment is the elimination of tariff and non-tariff measures for such industries as hazardous waste landfills, incinerators, and water services (since they are considered to be "environmental services"). The liberalization of these industries could prevent governments from placing limits on the number of facilities permitted to operate in a given area.