IS THE WORLD TRADE ORGANISATION A FRIEND OF FOE TO HIGH ANIMAL WELFARE STANDARDS?

 

By David Bowles, Head of International, Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals

 

The recent events surrounding the WTO Ministerial in Seattle, both on and off the streets, probably did more to raise the profile of the World Trade Organisation within the consciousness of the public than anything else it has done in its 52 year history. Four months on from the collapsed talks and with the re-launch of negotiations on the agricultural sector in March, an assessment of the relationship of the WTO to animal welfare is timely.

 

Animal welfare organisations, such as the RSPCA, have been successfully arguing for higher welfare standards in the UK and European Union with the result that many new laws have been agreed across the welfare spectrum, particularly in the past ten years. In certain cases, it was agreed to prohibit practises on welfare grounds, such as the use of the leghold trap decided in 1991, the keeping of calves in veal crates and the 1999 decision to phase out the battery hen cage. The dates are important as they straddle the metamorphosis of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) into the WTO, which came into effect in 1995. The important point for animal welfare in this change was that the consensual agreement contained in the GATT to lower trade barriers became binding - countries that were found to be in violation of the WTO could be forced to change their laws. Nations such as the EU which has high animal welfare standards and a number of laws that contained trade elements designed to maintain these standards, was suddenly confronted with the reality that these could be challenged in the WTO.

 

The potential for real conflict first became apparent in 1995 as the EU prepared to introduce the ban agreed four years previously on the import of certain furs from nations that continued to use leghold traps - a cruel and indiscriminate trapping method outlawed in more than sixty nations. As the trap was already prohibited in the EU, the ban amounted to a proposal that fur could only be imported if it was caught on the same welfare standards as those already operating in the importing country. Those principally affected were Canada and the US. When they threatened a WTO dispute, there was serious political fall-out. The European Commission (EC) was keen to avoid another high profile dispute with the US, particularly one it was not sure that it would win. Despite strong resistance from the European Parliament and some Member States, the EC eventually found a way around this problem by agreeing specific agreements with the main importing countries that would allow in furs caught under certain leghold traps. For the first time, a European law on animal welfare had been weakened as the standards agreed with Canada, Russia and the US were lower than those operating in the EU. Although the original import ban has come into effect, it does not apply to the three major exporters of furs to the EU.

 

The agreement to water down the leghold trap import ban did not have a dramatic impact on home producers. The then trade commissioner, Sir Leon Brittan consistently stated that the WTO did not prevent countries from adopting higher welfare standards. However this hope that raising welfare standards would not impact on home producers was soon dashed. The EC was already faced with implementation of a 1993 Directive which proposed to ban the marketing of cosmetics tested on animals in cases where suitable non-animal tests could be used from 1998. Once again, the EC deferred implementation of the ban due to fears regarding WTO rules. It was caught between a desire not to discriminate against EU producers and so implement a unilateral European ban and not to violate the WTO by telling foreign cosmetics companies to stop testing on animals if they wished to import those products to the EU. A decision on the 1998 ban continues to be postponed.

 

In the same period, the Agriculture Directorate of the EC was drafting proposals to improve the conditions of hens used for egg production. The EC predicted the point at which the increased costs of higher welfare and future tariff reductions might cross to make EU produced eggs uncompetitive should a ban on battery cages be agreed. The EC also concluded that a parallel labelling scheme to distinguish different egg production methods would be required and that it should be mandatory. However, fearing that a comprehensive labelling scheme might contravene WTO rules, the EC plans to limit the scheme to EU-produced eggs.

 

In June 1999 agriculture ministers agreed to a phase out of the battery cage by 2012 but recognised the effect that this would have on home producers if a level playing field could not be established for imports, particularly of dried egg products. They agreed to push at the WTO ministerial for recognition that the rules governing the welfare of animals should be a part of the negotiations on agriculture. Contained within the EU ban on battery cages was an escape clause - the EC was to review the situation with this issue in 2005, particularly looking at the result of the WTO negotiations and the effect of any ban on the home producers.

 

The EU did indeed raise the issue in Seattle but met with little support. It has maintained its position in the agricultural negotiations recently started. So now that the problems are apparent what are the solutions? The RSPCA has advocated seven possible solutions in its report Food for Thought issued to coincide with the Seattle meeting. Many of the concerns raised by animal welfare groups cross over into other areas. The crux of the issue to progress on being able to differentiate between products depending on how they were produced, "the non-product related Process and Production Methods (PPMs)". Under WTO rules this is not possible - the import of a free range egg must be treated in the same manner as a battery caged egg. These non-product related PPMs, are increasingly important in areas such as sustainable forestry, child labour and GMOs. The recent agreement at the Biosafety Protocol to allow distinctions of GMO imports gives some hope that solutions in this area can be discussed further.

 

A further RSPCA proposal to allow payments to producers operating under higher welfare standards as compensation for the higher costs involved has also been put forward by representatives of the farming groups, such as the NFU. The Ministry of Agriculture also announced last month that it considered this as a possible solution. The WTO's position on such payments is not clear at present but as it allows nontrade distorting payments for environmental good there should be some room for manoeuvre to allow welfare payments as well.

 

We are often told that the consumer should be the final arbitrator. At present this is difficult as information conveyed to the consumer through labelling is confused and opaque. The present situation on the voluntary egg labelling schemes with battery eggs being labelled as farm fresh highlights the need for mandatory schemes. However once again, the WTO's thinking on mandatory labelling for animal welfare is unclear. The EU's decision whether to go ahead with a mandatory egg labelling scheme could be an important test of the WTO rules.

 

The next three years will be crucial to the European animal welfare standards. Negotiations on agriculture are due to be completed by 2003. Failure to address the animal welfare issue could have a spin-off on the battery hen phase out. The EU has a number of animal welfare laws in the pipeline that need to be agreed or implemented, but have a WTO implication. Standards in areas such as cosmetics testing, slaughter of animals, and an agreement to increase the range of EU standards for farm animals will all be decided in the next two years. As we have seen here, to date the WTO has been acting as brake on certain European welfare standards. Failure to agree a way forward within the WTO could see this increase into a general freeze.

 

Conflict or Concord? - Animal Welfare and the WTO (1998)

Farm Animal Welfare and the WTO (Sept. 1999)

Both titles available free on request from the RSPCA, contact: international@rspca.org.uk