Clinton Admin Faces Challenge Over Environmental Reps in Timber Meetings
12/8/99
*******************************
RELAYED TEXT STARTS HERE:
Title: Days After Failed WTO Ministerial Clinton Administration
Faces Court Order: Include Environmental Representation or
Cancel Next Timber Advisory Meetings
Source: Earthjustice and Pacific Environment and Resources Center
Status: Copyright 1999, contact source for permission to reprint
Date: December 8, 1999
Byline: Patti Goldman (Earthjustice) 206-343-7340
Paige Fischer (Pacific Enviroment and Resources Center)
510-251-8800 ext. 305
Martin Wagner (Earthjustice) 415-627-6700
SEATTLE, WA Just days after the conclusion of the failed WTO summit
in Seattle, a federal district judge has ordered the United States
Trade Representative, Charlene Barshefsky, and the Secretary of
Commerce, William Daley, to ensure that at least one environmental
representative attends the next meeting of a panel that advises them
on matters involving international trade in forest products.
In a November 9, 1999, ruling, Judge Barbara Rothstein had ruled that
the Trade Representative and Commerce Secretary had violated the
Federal Advisory Committee Act by limiting membership on the paper
and wood products committees to industry officials. The law requires
that the advisory panels, of which there are approximately two dozen
concerned with international trade, be "fairly balanced." Judge
Rothstein found that excluding environmentalists rendered the
committees dealing with forestry unbalanced.
After the judge's ruling, the paper committee met without any
environmental representatives, and the wood products committee was
slated to meet this week, also without environmental representation.
The court ruling grants a limited injunction which will force the
U.S. Trade Representative to include environmental representation or
cancel the next meeting, scheduled for December 15, 1999.
From the ruling:
The court finds (1) adequate compliance with the court's prior order
requires that defendants name at least one interim environmental
representative to ISAC-10 (Lumber and Wood Products Committee) prior
to a December 15, 1999 meeting, and (2) the interim representative
should have a security clearance for, at least "confidential"
information.
The ruling by Judge Rothstein, comes in response to a lawsuit filed
by Earthjustice Legal Defense Fund on behalf of the Northwest
Ecosystem Alliance, the Pacific Environment and Resources Center,
Defenders of Wildlife, Sierra Club, Buckeye Forest Council, and the
International Forum on Globalization.
Environmentalists hailed the court' s ruling. It is time to bring
democracy to our trade policymaking, said Earthjustice attorney
Patti Goldman, who filed the lawsuit on behalf of the six
organizations.
The Seattle meeting of the World Trade Organization showed us that
people who object to the WTO's policies that put trade above
environmental protection cannot be shut out of the process.
"Environmental groups that have long campaigned for a more
transparent forest trade policy are vindicated by this ruling," said
Paige Fischer, director of PERC's Forest and Trade Program. "We will
hold President Clinton to his pledge at last week's ministerial to
`widen the circle' of trade negotiations."
- 30 -
Background on Trade Advisory Committees
Trade agreements are negotiated and implemented amidst tremendous
secrecy with little opportunity for public oversight or input. No
environmental impact statements are prepared on trade agreements and
the legislative process is often cut short and truncated.
The United States Trade Representative obtains some input through a
series of industry advisory committees. It has over two dozen
advisory committees that it consults on a regular basis. It provides
these committees secret information that is not available to the
public, such as the proposals on the table in negotiations and the
U.S. bargaining strategies.
In the early 1990s, as many as 800 industry executives sat on these
committees and not one environmental representative. In response to
public outrage at this preferred industry access to the trade
negotiators, the U.S. Trade Representative added a few environmental
representatives to a handful of the advisory committees.
The U.S. Trade Representative has about two dozen industry sector
advisory committees that have never had any environmental
representation. These committees are divided into types of industry,
such as wood products, paper, chemicals, and energy.
The lawsuit challenged the two industry advisory committees: one on
lumber and wood products, and the other on paper products. These
committees have obtained inside information and provided their views
to Administration officials on a regular basis. They applauded entry
into the World Trade Organization, which the environmental community
opposed. They objected to a provision in the WTO Agreements that
allows countries to subsidize some of the costs of complying with new
environmental regulations.
They have consistently and aggressively pushed for the complete
elimination of tariffs on forest products, which is something the
environmental community opposes in the absence of environmental
safeguards. They have addressed border safeguards to prevent the
entry and spread of insects from imports of untreated wood products
and packaging materials, while the environmental community has
actively sought to strengthen those restrictions.
They have also provided advice on global warming negotiations, a
packaging initiative that would reduce demand for wood and paper
products, United Nations forest negotiations, the WTO Committee on
Trade and Environment, and expansion of the North American Free Trade
Agreement. In the near term, they will continue to provide advice on
border safeguards to prevent the spread of invasive pests and will
address eco-labeling.
At the failed World Trade Organization mininsterial recently held in
Seattle the Clinton Administration was trying to negotiate an
agreement to eliminate tariffs in the forestry sector. At the
ministerial, the WTO was to launch a new round of negotiations to
liberalize trade, including many initiatives that could affect the
forestry sector. The environmental community is calling for an
assessment round which would involve a complete assessment of the
environmental impacts of the WTO and necessary reforms to protect
environmental standards before any further WTO expansion.
The Federal Advisory Committee Act requires that advisory committees
be fairly balanced in terms of the views represented. This statute
is designed to make the federal government accountable and fair when
it establishes and uses advisory committees.
The First Court Decision (November 9, 1999)
In an order entered on November 9, 1999, the U.S. District Court for
the Western District of Washington, located in Seattle, held that two
industry advisory committees dealing with trade policy affecting the
forest and paper products industries are operating illegally. Because
these committees are made up entirely of industry representatives,
yet they deal with environmental issues, they violate the fair
balance requirements of the Federal Advisory Committee Act.
Quotes from the opinion:
The forest product ISACs [Industry Sector Advisory Committees] lack
any environmental representation whatsoever . . ..
[T]he forest product ISACs routinely advise the government on trade
issues that affect the environment nationally and internationally.
For example, the forest product ISACs support the objectives of the
World Trade Organization (WTO), oppose government subsidies to cover
the cost of meeting new or stricter environmental regulations, and
oppose any tariffs on wood and paper products. . . . Plaintiff's
opinions on these matters are directly contrary: they seek to reform
the WTO to allow for greater environmental protections, including
eco-labeling and other restrictions on trade; they support government
subsidies to enable companies to meet environmental regulations; and
they support keeping tariffs in place until certain environmental
standards are met.
The highly charged nature and the stakes at issue in the free trade-
environment debate over timber sales are well documented.
[M]atters affecting the wood and paper products sector are
dramatically and inextricably intertwined with the environmental
health and protection of this nation.
In 1998 and 1999, the ISACs offered advice on policy matters as
diverse as global warming, the International Tropical Timber
Agreement, the United Nations International Forum on Forests, U.S.
import regulations for semi-processed wood materials, invasive
species safeguards, a European Union packaging directive, and the
expansion of NAFTA to include Chile. . . . Plaintiffs hold contrary
views upon these matters as well.
The forest product ISACs offer advice on diverse and far-reaching
issues that affect others, especially those who promote forest
conservation. The composition of the forest product ISACs, thus,
violates FACA's requirement to be fairly balanced in terms of
viewpoints to be represented.
Plaintiffs have shown that their interests are undermined by the
exclusion of any environmental representation on the forest product
ISACs: members of the ISACs are privy to information and advice that
directly impacts the plaintiffs and which plaintiffs cannot access
without participating on the ISACs.
The court finds that the forest product ISACs are not fairly Balanced
within the meaning of FACA.
The judge ordered the U.S. Trade Representative to make a good faith
to expedite the appointment of at least one properly qualified
environmental representative to each of the forest product ISACs as
soon as possible.