|
(EXTENDED ABSTRACT : c 1,270 WORDS)
Introduction
This presentation is designed to provide some historical context to the current
debate on animal welfare and international trade in the post-Uruguay Round WTO
trading environment, to identify current issues and to review some future policy
options. The personal views expressed are indicative of the perspective of an
agricultural trading nation committed to high domestic animal welfare standards,
to a rules-based global trading environment and to meeting the market requirements
of both domestic and international retailers and consumers.
Historical Context
The period 1950 - 2000 has seen dramatic increases in agricultural
productivity, due to general advances in agricultural and veterinary
science, specific improvements in genetics, nutrition and disease control
and prophylaxis, plus the impact of agriculture support programmes. There
has also been an inexorable move to more intensive systems of production,
especially in the more densely populated nations of Europe, Asia and North
America and particularly with pigs and poultry. More extensive systems of
production continue to be practised in New Zealand, Australia, South America
and Africa, for grazing species, and there is a strong public perception that
more extensive management systems are synonymous with better welfare.
Seminal texts by authors including Harrison, Singer, Rollin, Webster, et
al, plus the UK Brambell report, the paradigm of the "Five Freedoms" and the
influence of behavioural science, have all had a significant impact on the
attitudes of scientists, the public at large and, through them, politicians.
Welfare aspects of animal agriculture, and associated consumer preference behaviour,
have also attracted increasing attention from agricultural economists and agricultural ethicists.
Animal Welfare And Trade / Current Position And New Challenges
The conclusion of the GATT Uruguay Round in 1994 and the establishment of the WTO,
with its underpinning Sanitary and Phytosanitary (SPS) and Technical Barriers to
Trade (TBT) agreements plus the Agreement on Agriculture, were seen to set the
stage, and create a framework, for all nations to reap the benefits of agricultural
trade liberalisation. There is, however, a growing concern, particularly amongst
Non-Governmental Organisations (NGOs), that the WTO rules-based trading system is
biased towards the producer rather than the consumer and that the credibility of,
and public support for, the WTO is thus at risk. This view has been strengthened
by the outcome of the WTO dispute cases involving tuna/dolphin, shrimp/turtle and
leghold trap issues
The WTO legal framework refrains from passing judgement on animal welfare and
other ethical issues but growing consciousness of, and concern for, animal welfare
has highlighted the animal welfare/WTO issue. This is part of a broader debate
regarding linkages between morality and trade and the flexibility of the multilateral
trading system to accommodate non-trade issues. The key to the WTO debate is whether
trade measures based on animal welfare objectives, but which are not animal health
related, are consistent with WTO rules. The majority view is that non-health measures
involving animal welfare are not permitted, although this has not been tested under
WTO dispute settlement procedures. Article 1 (non-discrimination) and Article 3
(identical treatment for "like product", irrespective of processing or production method)
of the GATT agreement, plus the TBT provisions regarding "like product"
are critical in this regard.
The significance of the WTO agreement is also reflected
by the inclusion of specific WTO-related provisions in two
recent EU Directives. Article 8 of Council Directive 98/58 requires
that the European Commission prepare a report on the comparison between
EC and third country animal welfare provisions, the scope for widening
international acceptance of the welfare principles outlined in the Directive
and the extent to which Community animal welfare objectives might be undermined
by competition from non-member countries. Article 10 of Council Directive 99/74
requires that no later than 1/1/05 the Scientific Veterinary Committee submits
proposals in respect of management systems for layer hens, which take into account
the outcome of WTO negotiations.
Although a number of European countries were unsuccessful in having animal
welfare included in the SPS agreement, in the Uruguay Round negotiations,
the EU clearly signalled that it saw animal welfare as a key issue in the
lead up to the Seattle meeting and has, subsequently, submitted a formal
paper to the WTO Committee on Agriculture. This EU paper argues that
animal welfare should be addressed primarily within Article 20 of the Agreement
on Agriculture but emphasises that this is not a basis for new types of non-tariff
trade barriers or sovereignty infringements. Measures proposed include the development
of multilateral animal welfare agreements and appropriate labelling and compensation
payments, which would have minimal effects on trade and production.
NGOs have also proposed a package of similar measures including non-trade distorting
"Green Box" payments, phasing out of export subsidies which encourage intensive
production methods and live animal transport, and differentiation of "high welfare"
products via appropriate labelling.
In response to these EU proposals to have animal welfare included in the WTO
agreement, there is an alternative view that the various suggestions being made
to address animal welfare concerns are much more likely to receive broad-based
international support, and to achieve the same objectives, if they remain outside
the WTO agreement. This view argues that animal welfare concerns, including those
that might have implications for trade, would be best addressed in specific,
well-targetted agreements, rather than by seeking to treat animal welfare concerns
as generic. Potentially, such measures could relate to a number of specific
provisions in different trade agreements - on agriculture, subsidies and
technical barriers to trade, to name a few. If specific concerns are
pursued, it is believed these are likely to be more successful than a
generalised animal welfare initiative in the WTO.
Change to the WTO agreements themselves would, thus, not be necessary
to facilitate meaningful gains in animal welfare. International agreements,
including those negotiated outside the framework of the WTO, are being taken
into account in dispute settlement cases when evaluating whether a Government
is justified in taking a measure which would otherwise be a breach of its WTO
obligations. If, however, a direct approach reference to animal welfare was
ever included in the WTO, SPS and TBT agreements, the OIE may well be an appropriate,
established, inter-governmental organisation to address animal welfare issues and seek
agreement on international standards.
Another important regulatory concept relevant to this issue is that of
equivalence, where one country accepts the standards and regulations of
another as equivalent to their own provided they adequately fulfil the
objectives of their own regulations. This can give assurance that good
animal welfare standards are being observed, while reducing regulatory
barriers to trade.
In addition to voluntary labelling schemes, other non-regulatory
approaches include consumer education initiatives and quality assurance schemes.
Conclusion
The current debate regarding the precise position of animal
welfare issues in relation to WTO rules is likely to continue for
some time and it is important that all views be heard. This workshop,
and the commitment to public dissemination of workshop outcomes, is an
excellent example of how informed debate can be promoted, to assist in
formulation of robust policy.
It is also important to look beyond the "lowest common denominator/assurance
of market access" notion. The challenge should be not merely to secure market
access but to achieve "market success" by recognising, and responding to, the
quality requirements of consumers and retailers. Webster takes a confident,
forward-looking and positive view that, given an appropriate policy framework
and strategic direction, livestock producers will respond to society's needs
over the next 50 years, as they have done for the last 50 years.
|
Conference Section
