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 (下)

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

4.有利？：廢除漁業補貼

　　世貿組織已同意著手進行一項關於漁業補貼導致「貿易變質」的新談判，因為此一補貼政策會讓全球的魚群量日益減少。環保人士期望，廢除這種對生態環境有害的補貼政策的商議最後能落實。不過由於世貿組織的本質並不民主，廢除補貼後值得商榷的是：為此將會被忽視的數百萬依靠永續漁業的漁民需求。

5.平手：世貿組織與國際環境協定的拉鋸戰

　　究竟世貿組織與多邊環境協定（MEAs）的關係，是有助？ 抑或是有害於環保工作？我們實在很難瞭解世貿組織本身對此的評估。長期以來，環保人士一再呼籲：當世貿組織與環境協定衝突時，應優先考慮環境協定。由於歐盟的力倡，與會代表同意未來談判將會探討世貿組織與多邊環境協定之間的關係；然而，這並不能保證會有令人滿意的結果。事實上，有人擔心未來關於多邊環境協定的法律追溯上，世貿組織可能會利用這些談判結果作為擋箭牌。

6.不利：競爭法則可能會衝擊環保工作

　　如果環保法規注定就是競爭障礙的話，在這個談判的新領域（例如：投資談判已經拖延了數年之久），世貿組織可能會創造一套用來反對環保法律與管制的說法。

7.平手：生態標章的討論

　　世貿組織已經籌組了「貿易與環境委員會」以研討「為了環境理由而將產品用標章分類」；這種做法對於生態標章方案，可能是有利的，也可能是有害的，更可能完全沒有影響。

8.不利：世貿組織推動不利環境的議程

　　對於環保工作而言，恐怕最大的不利之處，即是各國官員的加入使世貿組織差強人意地得以維持某種正當性。自從西雅圖會議後，由於公眾對世貿組織有實際地審視與批判，同時發展中國家也開始起而捍衛自身利益，大家不免要懷疑，世貿組織還能繼續生存嗎？但是，多哈宣言卻能藉著推動新議程而賦予世貿組織新的活力，雖然此議程已被證實對環保工作不大有利，（同樣也對：勞工、婦女、發展中國家，以及農民不利）。目前的情況仍舊混沌不清，我們還在觀察，是否多哈會議所提出的較小議題，能讓各會員國繼續共襄盛舉？過去西雅圖會議時所出現的許多嚴重衝突，不僅再次左右了此次多哈會議的協商，而且短時間內也很難解決。然而，就如同世貿組織依舊存在的情勢看來，它總有一天還是會破壞環境的。

【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/ec02032101.htm　

4. WIN (?): ELIMINATING FISHERIES SUBSIDIES.
The WTO agreed to initiate negotiations regarding "trade distorting" subsidies of the fishing industry that are related to the global decline of fisheries stocks. It is the hope of the environmental community that these talks will lead to the elimination of ecologically harmful subsidies. Concerns remain, however, that the undemocratic nature of the WTO will not consider the needs of the millions of people who depend on sustainable fisheries.

5. DRAW: RECONCILING THE WTO WITH INTERNATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL AGREEMENTS.
It is difficult to assess whether the WTO's assessment of the relationship between the WTO and multilateral environmental agreements (MEAs) will be a help or hindrance to environmental protection. Environmentalists have long called for a clarification that deference should go to the environmental agreement in the case of a conflict with the WTO. At the urging of the European Union, it was agreed that negotiations would explore the relationship between the WTO and MEAs; however, there is no assurance that the outcome will be favorable. In fact, there is some concern that the WTO may attempt to use these negotiations to assume jurisdiction in relation to MEAs.

6. LOSS: COMPETITION RULES MAY CHALLENGE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTIONS.
In this new area of negotiation (that, like investment, is being postponed a couple of years), the WTO may adopt language that would be used to challenge environmental laws and regulations if they are deemed to be barriers to competition.

7. DRAW: DISCUSSION ON ECO-LABELING.
The WTO has instructed the Committee on Trade and Environment to study "labelling requirements for environmental purposes." This may produce an outcome that is beneficial, harmful, or has no affect on eco-labeling schemes.

8. LOSS: NEW MOMENTUM TO ADVANCE THE WTO'S AGENDA.
Perhaps the greatest loss that environmental protection has been dealt is that the World Trade Organization has, in a limited sense, maintained some legitimacy amongst the governmental officials of the world. After real public scrutiny of the agency emerged in Seattle and developing countries began to stand up for their interests, it became questionable whether the WTO would survive. The Doha Declaration has breathed some new life into the organization to advance an agenda that has proven detrimental to the environment (as well as workers, women, developing nations, and farmers). The situation is still very tenuous, and it remains to be seen whether the relatively small agenda that came out of Doha will serve to hold the organization together. The enormous cracks that emerged in Seattle once again dominated the talks in Doha, and they are not likely to dissipate at any time soon. As it stands now, however, the WTO has survived and will live to undermine the environment another day.