|
For the second time in three years, major international negotiations
have broken down at the OECD. Then, it was the Multilateral Agreement
on Investment, the "MAI". This time, it is an attempt
at negotiating common environmental guidelines for export credit
agencies (ECAs), the world's largest official financiers of environmentally
and socially destructive projects in developing countries.
Like the
MAI, these negotiations took place by ignoring and denying the
input of civil society. The proposal was drafted behind closed
doors, without involvement from national legislators or any
other form of democratic oversight. Input from other international
institutions and from the environmental departments of the OECD
was also summarily dismissed.
The negotiations
finally collapsed when the U.S. failed to agree or abstain,
fearing that the weak proposal would undermine the higher standards
of the U.S. Ex-Im Bank - the US export credit agency. In this
incident, ironically enough, the US is acting in the best tradition
of multilateralism, namely saving other governments from themselves.
On the contrary, the German obstructionist attitude is illustrative
of their policy incoherence. Daniel Mittler of BUND, an environmental
NGO in Germany, said : 'It contrasts starkly with the way Germany
framed the recent withdrawal of the K2R4 nuclear project from
the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development as a result
of the German push for high environmental standards.' Any government
seeking to paint the outcome of the negotiations as anything
more than a failure is dishonest.
The key
issue now is where the relevant OECD governments go next on
this issue. Civil society groups stand ready to work constructively
with the OECD countries to develop a set of binding standards
covering sustainable development, linking economic, social,
human rights, labour and environmental issues. Antonio Tricarico,
from Eyes on SACE, Italy, says that "to be meaningful,
a holistic approach needs to be put in place, including input
from all relevant ministries, parliamentarians and civil society
groups".
"Once
again the OECD's credibility is on the line," said Aaron
Goldzimer of the U.S. environmental group Environmental Defense.
"Public opinion will no longer tolerate tax payers' money
being used to undermine human rights and environmental standards."
Flawed processes always yield flawed results. Once again the
organisation will be judged by its response to a major setback.
FIDH, France
Friends of the Earth United Kingdom
CIEL, USA ANPED, Netherlands
Environmental Defense, USA CRBM, Italy
Friends of the Earth International WEED, Germany
Amigos de la Tierra, Spain BUND, Germany
URGEWALD, Germany Friends of the Earth France
|
