TAED Biodiversity Working Group, Washington, DC, October 13-15, 1999

SUMMARY REPORT

The Biodiversity Working Group of this second TAED meeting focused on
forest-related issues.  At the first two sessions, we identified key
thematic areas for discussion.  These were: trade as it relates to the
forest sector, particularly in the context of the upcoming WTO
Ministerial, existing conventions, such as CITES and the CBD, Non-Tariff
Measures, and Accelerated Trade Liberalization.

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.  At the end of the
day, we established that what we need is effective regimes outside of
the WTO, that NTM is the key issue in the trade arena, and that all
trade measures related to natural resources, such as forests and
fisheries, should be subjected to a full environmental, economic and
social impact analysis.

On the second day, the Biodiversity working group met with Jan McAlpine,
Senior Negotiator on Forests of the US State Department, Jack Waide, the
US Forest Service, Michael Hicks, Trade Policy Coordinator for the USDA
Foreign Agricultural Service, and Naseef Huda of the Environment
Directorate of the European Commission.

With them we covered the following topics and received the following
information:
· CITES - possible inclusion of mahogany as an endangered species
· CBD - despite the fact that the US is not likely to ratify this
convention, the current administration is acting in full support of
furthering its implementation
· The US is actively looking to improve the implementation of the forest
program of work of the CBD
· Illegal trade and logging activities - the administration feels that
progress in the international forest policy arena is held hostage by
some countries who are awaiting formal negotiations on a forest
convention
· The role of multilateral development banks within forest conservation,
and the impact of agricultural policies and subsidies on the same
· Compliance issues and monitoring by NGOs
· Priority to identify true and real needs for a multilateral agreement
· The contrast between multitude of existing commitments and actual work
getting done
· We discussed whether a new commitment would translate into additional
work on the ground. An example of such a new commitment is the G8 action
forest plan.
· The US administration also felt that governments in general can use
the input and help of NGOs to bring commitments to implementation
· Certification processes and policies 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 structures
of governments

We ended the discussion looking for specific existing instruments that
promote forest conservation, such as debt-for-nature swaps and debt
buy-back. We also discussed the role that civil society in developing
countries plays or could play in the context of said instruments.

Looking ahead to future meetings of the Transatlantic Environmental
Dialogue, we discussed the eventual possibility of including NGOs from
other countries. 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-labeling,
certification, and export bans on raw logs.


Statement to Official EU and US Delegations made on Friday afternoon,
October 15, 1999

"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-labeling, 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?



[  Hans J.H. Verolme - coordinator
[  Biodiversity Action Network
[  1630 Connecticut Avenue, NW, 3rd floor
[  Washington, DC 20009-1053, USA

Please note as of August 31, 1999 our phone #s have changed
[  tel. +1 (202) 238-0550 fax. +1 (202) 238-0579
[  e-mail: bionet@igc.org WWW: http://www.bionet-us.org