Doc. 8200

21 September 1998

Activities of OECD in the field of the environment

Contribution

Committee on the Environment, Regional Planning and Local Authorities

Rapporteur: Mr Besostri, Italy, Socialist Group

Introduction

      Following the example of the report by the Committee on Economic Affairs and Development, the Committee on the Environment, Regional Planning and Local Authorities will deal only with the themes agreed with the OECD Secretary General, and which fall within its sphere of competence.

      The committee feels that it must make a number of comments on two of these themes: the Multilateral Agreement on Investment (MAI) and the follow-up to the Kyoto Conference on climate change.

1.       The OECD’S Multilateral Agreement on Investment (MAI)

      The technical aspects relating solely to the economy are exhaustively described and commented on in the report by the Committee on Economic Affairs. I therefore feel that there is no need to go over them again.

      The committee must, however, draw attention to the serious reservations, criticisms and worries expressed by many NGOs and even governments with regard to the various consequences that the MAI could have for sustainable development in general and for certain issues in particular.

      Many NGOs active in the environmental field have stressed that the priority given to investment, returns and productivity throughout the world, as provided for in the MAI, could be highly detrimental to social well-being, the level of resources and balanced development, to which the international community stated it was committed at the Rio Summit in 1992 …

      Without fully agreeing with those who are fiercely opposed to the OECD's MAI, I believe that it is essential to give serious consideration to some of these reservations during the next round of negotiations. These concerns should also be the subject of a more general debate to ensure that greater account is taken of social or environmental concerns in international economic agreements.

      In the present case it would be necessary, for example, to guarantee the right of citizens to be informed of decisions taken under the MAI and for citizens to be able to voice their opinions under procedures introduced for this purpose.

      It is also important to avoid any form of automatic functioning of the procedure for the approval of investments which might not allow national parliaments to assess such investments and their effects on national economic policies or enable local authorities to give an opinion on the compatibility of investments which would involve changes in the environment and have effects on spatial planning at both local and regional level.

      Moreover, the agreements should impose stricter obligations on investors with regard to protection of the environment and respect for workers’ and consumers’ rights.

      For example, investment agreements should incorporate the principle of the highest environmental standard. This means that firms investing or pursuing industrial and commercial activities in countries whose environmental legislation and regulations are rather weak should be required to undertake to comply with the environmental standards in force in the countries where they are based, if those standards ensure better protection of the environment.

      In the light of these observations, I would like to take the opportunity afforded by the enlarged debate on the OECD’s activities to reiterate the need both to provide for parliamentary scrutiny in negotiations concerning issues of prime importance, such as those mentioned above, and to take more explicit account of the issues relating to sustainable development.

2.       The Kyoto Protocol on climate change

      Climatic changes constitute a major ecological threat seriously endangering both the health of populations and sustainable development. Action to eliminate these dangers must become a priority for the international community.

      In December 1997, at the end of one of the hottest years for decades, the 3rd Conference of the Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climatic Change was held in Kyoto. This conference will go down in history because of the first protocol to the convention which was signed on this occasion.

      At this conference the world’s major polluters expressed firm commitment to substantially reducing - by 2012 - their emissions of six greenhouse gases considered to be the main cause of the alarming phenomenon of global warming.

While some countries are expected to reduce their emissions by between 6% (the United States) and 8% (the European Union), others, considered less responsible, are expected to maintain their levels, and yet others will even be allowed to increase theirs.

The Kyoto Protocol, as we already know, was only signed by a limited number of countries and will, perhaps, not enter into force within a reasonable time unless a number of mechanisms allowing for flexibility in its application are introduced. These mechanisms, as you may remember, include the “trading” of emission rights and the “joint” implementation of the protocol by several industrialised countries or by industrialised countries in association with developing countries.

In this connection, we should also welcome the fact that, in view of the concerns expressed with regard to such mechanisms and their possible uses, the principle was established that countries should meet “part” of their target on their own territory. Given that this is, for the time being, only a principle, we need to carefully follow the negotiations on the definition of “part …”.

The committee has often had occasion to report on the need to exert continual pressure on governments to ensure that they actually fulfil the commitments they enter into when signing conventions and agreements. Indeed, it has to be said that governments do not show the same commitment to implementing a convention as to signing it.

Although the conditions in which the Kyoto Conference took place were sometimes difficult, it did result in a protocol which constitutes a major step towards a coherent global response on the part of the international community to the danger represented by climate change.

However, we should also be aware of the particular difficulty of this undertaking, given that in order to be successful it requires — more than any other agreement of this type — the commitment of all groups concerned and unwavering political interest and support.

It was also necessary, in the case of this convention, to guarantee a collective effort and to ensure that it was not solely implemented by countries that bear very little responsibility for the problem. From this point of view we should welcome the fact that at least fifty-five countries have to ratify the agreement before it comes into force, as well as the fact that this is also conditional on the countries party to the protocol being responsible for at least 55% of the harmful emissions in question.

This proves how great the stakes are and how much the success of the undertaking depends on a collective political willingness to take action.

The Parliamentary Assembly can play a real part in encouraging national parliaments and even governments to implement international agreements, and this represents a considerable potential in terms of the action to be taken to guarantee the success of such enterprises. Such action is particularly important, especially in the negotiations on mechanisms to facilitate the application of the Kyoto Protocol.

The next Conference of the Parties will be held in Buenos Aires in early November 1998 and, with this in mind, it is important that we ask our respective parliaments to ask their governments to present and discuss, with the committees concerned, the positions to be adopted at this conference.

With regard to the future implementation of the convention, the Assembly has a duty to firmly repeat how important it considers the commitment of all Parties to be at this stage.

      In this connection, it welcomes the OECD’s work on developing a procedure for monitoring the application of this convention by its member states. In this context, and in view of the above-mentioned importance of parliamentary action, increased co-operation between the Parliamentary Assembly and the OECD in this field can but be beneficial.

Conclusion

I believe that the MAI and the monitoring of the implementation of the Kyoto Protocol may present worthwhile opportunities for co-operation between the OECD and the Parliamentary Assembly.

Indeed, parliamentary action could help to ensure that the MAI negotiations take greater account of the concerns of sustainable development.

Moreover, with a view to the forthcoming conference of the Parties to the Conference on Climate Change, the Parliamentary Assembly could ask national parliaments to exert greater pressure on governments to adopt clear and effective methods for implementing the Kyoto Protocol.

1.       The following should be added to the end of paragraph 12:

      "It believes that where protection of the environment is concerned the future agreement should introduce the principle of compliance with the highest standard."

2.       The following words should be added to the end of paragraph 13:

3.       The following new paragraph should be added after paragraph 15:

      Consequently, the enlarged Assembly asks member states to pay particular attention to the preparation of the negotiations which will take place at the next Conference of the Parties (Buenos Aires, November 1998), and which will be decisive for the effectiveness of the convention. It stresses the importance of involving national parliaments in the preparation of these negotiations.

***

Reporting committee : Committee on Economic Affairs and Development (Doc. 8179).

Contributing committee: Committee on the Environment, Regional Planning and Local Authorities

Reference to committee : standing mandate

This contribution was approved by the committee on 10 September 1998

Secretaries to the committee: Mrs Cagnolati-Staveris, Mr Grau-Tanner and Mr Chevtchenko.