The"Greening"of the WTO Has Started
演讲人：Pascal Lamy帕斯卡尔·拉米
Ladies and gentlemen：
I am very happy to join Ernesto Zedillo in discussing the WTO"s sustainable development agenda.I would like to begin by commending Ernesto on the fine job he is doing at the Yale Globalization Centre.I happen to be a great fan of the Center"s online journal on globalization，and of its thought-provoking analyses of economic and trade issues.
Ladies and gentlemen，it would be impossible for me to speak at Yale University on the WTO"s sustainable development a genda ，a nd more precisely on t he relationship between trade and the environment，without paying tribute to Yale University Professor Daniel Esty for his 1994book "Greening the GATT".His book was at the origins of the trade and environment debate.When it first came out，Senator Baucus described the book as one that would help break down the walls that divide theadvocates of greater environmental protection from those calling for more open markets.
Carla Hills，former United States Trade Representative，said that the book would be certain to elicit"strong reactions"from both sides，but that those reactions would further the debate.And how right she was.Daniel Esty had，no doubt，brought an intellectual and academic rigour to a topic that was much in need of both.
Of course，back at the time when the book was being written，the multilateral trading system was caught up in an enormous controversy，especially in this country，due to its perceived supra-national force.The GATT had just taken its Tuna-Dolphin decision，and much discussion was taking place in the United States on the relationship between trade and the environment in the run-up to NAFTA.I still recall how anti-GATT protesters had papered Washington with posters of a giant monster，a gorilla，better known as "GATTZILLA"，walking all over the White House and pouring DDT.
In browsing through Daniel Esty"s book on my way from the WTO to Yale，I could not help but think of the long way，that not only I was travelling，but that the trade and environment discussion had itself travelled since those days.
In fact，there is no doubt that when the trade and environment debate started in earnest，first in GATT and subsequently in WTO，it took the multilateral trading system by storm.Few realized at the time that what was under discussion were people"s"values"，and the extentto which some of those values could be allowed to cross borders along with traded goods.
At the time of the Tuna-Dolphin decision，some Americans perceived their beloved TV Dolphin，"Flipper"，to be in danger.But，to some others both in the United States and elsewhere，whereas dolphins were indeed important，there were other species that were also in need of protection，ones equally vital to our ecosystem.Where would the WTO draw the line between the values that could cross national borders，became the question.And，more importantly perhaps，should the drawing of such a line at all be the role of the WTO？
Whereas to some，it was vital that the international system be made to stop morally，or environmentally-repugnant trade；to others，accommodating such values through the trading system spelt doomsday.Professor Jagdish Bhagwati wrote："If a nation"s trading rights can be suspended simply because it refuses to accept another nation"s idiosyncratic values，everyone could insist on"morality-driven"trade restrictions，and the whole international trading system would head down a slippery slope."Now，as this debate continued to rage，the WTO quietly went about its day-to-day business.It continued to administer its trade agreements，and to settle the commercial disputes lodged by itsmembers.Some of the WTO"s staunchest environmental critics found one particularfact very surprising.Whereas they had expected that myriads of environmental laws would be challenged in the WTO for their trade-restrictiveness，they found that until today only a handful of environmental cases ever came-and this over the WTO"s ten year lifetime！
They were equally surprised that their prediction that trade rules would systematically trump environmental rules，did not materialize.Rather，the WTO showed itself capable of delivering not only trade justice，but some measure of environmental justice too.The WTO"s "necessity test"，that was so feared by environmentalists，allowed France in 2001to maintain its ban on the importation of Asbestos，so it could protect its citizens and construction workers.Moreover，in the Shrimp-Turtle dispute，the WTO pushed its members towards a strengthening of their environmental collaboration.It insisted that a cooperative environmental solution be found for the protection of sea turtles between the parties to the conflict.And，a Memorandum of Understanding on the Conservation and Management of Marine Turtles and their Habitats in the Indian Ocean soon came about！The image of GATTZILLA gradually began to fade.
Back in 1994，Daniel Esty saw a need for the reform of the multilateral trading system，and a strengthening of the global environmental governance architecture.As part of the environmental face-lift of the WTO，here are some of the elements of the reform menu he had proposed：that environmental impact assessments be undertaken in tandem with trade opening so effective flanking measures may be designed；that greater public participation be allowed inthe WTO so the public"s environmental concerns may be brought to bear；that environmental exper ts be consulted inWTO dispute settlement for more even-handed rulings；and that the WTO respect international environmental treaties.He also aspired to one day seeing what he referred to as a "Green Round of trade negotiations."Today，in 2007，as I stand before you，I am pleased to say that the WTO is well