When a public discussion focuses on a theme as daring as "Trade and climate change: Is trade killing our planet?", attendance is guaranteed. It was no surprise, therefore, to see a fully-packed meeting room for a parliamentary panel on this theme organized by the Inter-Parliamentary Union and the European Parliament (EP) last October, within the framework of Geneva's highly popular annual political event known as the Public Forum of the World Trade Organization (WTO).
The WTO Forum is a significant feature of the international calendar, a must-see event for delegates from government, parliament, civil society, the business sector, academia and the media who gather in Geneva every year to reflect upon the functioning of the multilateral trading system and analyse the institutional state of the WTO. The IPU traditionally supports the Forum by organizing, as part of its overall programme, thematic parliamentary panels geared towards the interests of members of parliament specializing in international trade. Such panels constitute a welcome appendage to the process known as the Parliamentary Conference on the WTO - a de facto parliamentary dimension of this inter-governmental organization.
The choice of theme for this year's parliamentary panel was overtly political and inspired by the on-going IPU campaign to raise public awareness of the adverse impact of climate change. Over a relatively short period of time, the subject of global warming and the degradation of the environment has ceased to be the exclusive domain of scientists and green activists, and has been placed squarely on the political agendas of governments, parliaments and international organizations.
The panel examined the varied effects of trade liberalization on the environment, focusing in particular on the nexus between seaborne trade and climate change. It comprised the following members of parliament: Ms. I. A-Baki (Ecuador), Mr. S. Mohamed (Mauritius) and Mr. J. Moreno Sánchez (European Parliament), as well as the President of the International Ocean Institute, Mr. A. Behnam. The moderator was Mr. P. Baert of Agence France Presse.
Throughout the debate, examples abounded of the heavy toll paid by our planet for dangerous human interference in the environment and the climate. The gravity of the problems affecting the health of the oceans, as the main providers of biodiversity, seems to be particularly underestimated.
Over the past 42 years, the overall fish catch has increased two-fold. Up to 75 per cent of fish stock is now either overexploited or recovering. The shark population alone is believed to have shrunk by 100 million. Discarded fish amounts to 20 million tonnes per year, representing 25 per cent of all fish caught. Fish piracy is a major problem, estimated to cost US$10 billion annually. Ocean pollution is omnipresent, with some 50 thousand pieces of plastic floating on every square mile of ocean surface. And yet another 8 million items are thrown overboard from passing vessels every day.
There is a plethora of ocean governance tools, but few enforcement and monitoring mechanisms. Greenhouse gas emissions from maritime shipping are basically unregulated and remain outside of the scope of the Kyoto Protocol. Flags of convenience make it even more difficult to put international environmental agreements into effect. As a result, by and large lawlessness prevails.
Time and again, the participants reverted to the problem of the enforcement of common rules. Representatives of developing countries complained that not all WTO members were applying trade rules equally and that, in essence, it was up to the poor countries to comply. Regarding the environment, the countries that suffered the most were the least polluting ones.
It was felt, however, that the problem was not so much a lack of legislation as a lack of commitment to implement the agreements. Without a mechanism to enforce implementation, little can be achieved through international conferences and agreements, including the Kyoto Protocol and post-Kyoto, which is now in the making.
Some delegates noted that climate change could also provide opportunities for technological innovation and business ventures. These include improving energy efficiency, transitioning to a low-carbon economy, increasing renewable energy development and mitigating greenhouse gas emissions. Most are linked to new trade opportunities.
The conclusion of the panel was quasi-unanimous: managing the Earth's environment is one of the greatest challenges facing the international community. It is also high time to integrate climate change considerations into national development strategies. Parliaments should take the lead in these efforts.
