Finance, Trade and Economic Growth and the

Overriding Issue of Consumption and Production Patterns

 

NGO Caucus on Sustainable Production and Consumption

 

February 18, 2000

 

On February 22-25, the CSD Working Group on Finance, Trade and Economic Growth will meet, in preparation for the Commission meeting in April.  As you know, Poverty/Consumption

and Production Patterns were also identified by the General Assembly in 1997 as "overriding issues" to be addressed by the programme of work.  Rather than treating consumption and production as a separate issue, it is useful to instead use the goal of achieving sustainable consumption and production patterns as an integrative perspective from which to address some of the difficult problems within the discussion of finance and trade.

 

As our Caucus asserted last year, achieving sustainable production and consumption is interdependent with major changes needed in global trade, finance and investment practices. 

In turn, government delegates at last year's meetings acknowledged the links between investment, finance, mass media, advertising and marketing, wealth and consumption.  However, to adequately understand and address these links, a new policy framework is essential.

 

As you also know, Chapter 4 in Agenda 21 identifies unsustainable production and consumption patterns as the "major cause of the continued deterioration of the environment."  This chapter also points out that "in order to formulate coherent international and national policies" more "needs to be known about the role of consumption in relation to economic growth and population dynamics."  The section highlights the fact that "some economists are questioning traditional concepts of economic growth and underlining the importance of pursuing economic objectives

that take account of the full value of natural resource capital," recognizing "the need for new concepts of wealth and prosperity."  

 

Last year, the NGOs of the Sustainable Production and Consumption Caucus expressed their concerns about the trade liberalisation negotiations by the WTO -- concerns greatly amplified last November during the WTO meeting in Seattle.  NGOs continue to call for a comprehensive assessment of the impact of existing trade agreements on poverty, environmental degradation, health, consumer protection, labour rights and other social issues.

 

The need for such an assessment was also highlighted at the CSD's preparatory meeting in the Netherlands last September, where efforts to develop an action plan agenda were bogged down in controversies over the impacts of trade policy on sustainable agriculture and food security.

 

Also last year we lamented the breakdown of negotiations on the biosafety protocol, which we saw as primarily due to the trading interests of a few large corporations and their home governments, over-riding environmental and human health concerns.  A few days ago governments reached a compromise on this agreement, which would allow a country to ban the import of a genetically modified food without having to establish full scientific "proof" that it was unsafe -- that is, to respect the precautionary principle.  NGOs continue to stress that important principles such as the precautionary principle, prior informed consent, and the public right to know and choose are essential elements of fair trade policy dealing with biotechnology.

 

In discussing trade and investment in biotechnology, we should remember one EU member's recent statement that "this is about the right to choose for consumers."  Unfortunately, many of the unsustainable products now circulating have been heavily marketed by producers with little effort given to educating consumers about the consequences of their consumption.  With this in mind, we would like to recall the UN Consumer Guidelines' recommendation for governments to provide consumer education and information "on the environmental impacts of consumption patterns" so that consumer choices are fully informed. 

 

In turn, we would like to recall and support the concerns raised last year by the g77 and other countries on the impacts of media and advertising on consumption and production patterns and the need to study these impacts.  Since so much of unsustainable consumption and production is heavily promoted by the advertising industry, the destructive influence of advertising and

marketing on trade and economic growth needs to be acknowledged and addressed.  We request that the CSD especially focus on these impacts of advertising, especially on developing countries, as part of this year's discussion of trade, and in its preparations for next year's discussions on information for decision-making.

 

Globalization and trade liberalisation have increased pressures on many economies to attract foreign direct investment.  The increased competition for such investment has often meant

a relaxing of environmental and labor standards, with direct negative impacts especially on women and indigenous peoples.

 

In developing policy about trade it is important to keep in mind that trade, advertising, packaging and selling are all elements of marketing and distribution of a company or society's products. 

We should be discussing trade more as an interdependent part of the larger system of consumption, investment, and production, rather than as a separate policy priority that automatically overrides all other concerns.

 

In moving towards integrated national policy frameworks which promote fair trade, responsible investment, and sustainable production and consumption patterns, it is important to focus on the

ultimate goal for all these processes and policies. This is the goal which "development" and "economic growth" are presumably meant to serve -- pointed out in Principle 8 of the Rio Declaration -- "a higher quality of life for all people." 

 

The goal of sustainable development needs to be reasserted, especially in response to the tendency to replace this priority with overriding process objectives -- such as eliminating trade and growth barriers.  Development in itself is not a goal but a process, a means.

 

Furthermore, the goal of a higher quality of life for all people needs to be clarified.  Rather than submit to the advertisers and marketers' definition of quality of life -- translated as an increased capacity to buy and consume unlimited quantities of commodities -- it is important to take the time to consider the non-material and non-commercial dimensions of the quality of life.  Most of

these goods and services are produced by the quality of relationships in a community, not by ownership of things.  The pursuit of status through the competitive struggle for the most property and power, especially where ethnic and gender inequalities are institutionalized, is more often a source of conflict than peace and prosperity.  When trade and growth only benefit the already privileged few, widening the gap between rich and poor, the result is not an increasing quality

of life for all.