BIODIVERSITY WORKING GROUP
STATEMENT TO OFFICIAL DELEGATION

We are disappointed with the US non-ratification of international environmental conventions, specifically the Convention on Biological Diversity. Given the position of the European Union that multilateral environmental agreements should provide the guiding framework for the WTO, what's your reaction to the fact that the US is clearly unlikely, in the near future, to ratify the CBD, one of the primary MEAs in existence?

We oppose the proposal in the WTO to accelerate tariff liberalization in sectors that affect forests, on the grounds that it increases logging, threatens the rights and livelihoods of indigenous peoples throughout the world, undermines environmental standards and threatens the well-being of communities.

Trade liberalization is not an end in itself but should rather work in support of our common goal of equitable social and environmentally sustainable development. For the upcoming six months leading up to the next TAED meeting in May 2000, we propose to focus our discussions on possible future liberalization of non-tariff measures that promote environmental protection, for example, measures on invasive species, eco-labelling, certification, and export bans on raw logs. Therefore, we would like to know when, where, in what arena and to what extent you want the still ill-defined issue of non-tariff measures to be addressed?

We strongly urge that all proposed trade measures are subjected to full social, economic and environmental impact analysis prior to start of negotiations.

We also discussed how to foster mutually supportive relationships among international bodies and fora, the lack of a bridge between major trade bodies such as the WTO and real lives of real people. In this regard, do you believe that species in international trade that have high commercial value should be given identical treatment under CITES as every other species therein? What steps are the EU and the US taking to involve civil society in the preparations for the upcoming CITES meeting in April 2000? We know that the US publishes proposals in the federal register and invites comments and holds consultations with NGOs in advance of CITES meetings. At the moment, it appears that on the EU side there is nearly no consultation with European NGOs on CITES matters, at least not in a formalized manner. Will the Commission now be taking steps to consult with civil society on CITES?

In relation to our discussions regarding the imminent conclusion of the IFF, we asked what kind, if any, of forest-related forum or institution at the international level we need. After the IFF, in terms of forest policy, what functions do you think are of primary concern to your governments and where they should they be discussed?

QUESTION SPECIFICALLY FOR EC
In the area of trade and conservation, we noted recognition on both sides that a significant problem in addressing forest issue is posed by the existing fragmented structures of governments. Can you comment on the intent and purpose of the current restructuring efforts within the European Commission specifically in the context of the forest sector? What do you intend to do to ensure an increase in effectiveness and efficiency in the forest sector?