The FTAA and the Threat to Animal Welfare

by Dr. Rick Smith, International Fund for Animal Welfare

Founded in Canada in 1969, the International Fund for Animal Welfare (IFAW) is now one of the largest animal welfare organizations in the world, with offices in 12 countries. IFAW works to improve the welfare of wild and domestic animals throughout the world by reducing commercial exploitation of animals, protecting wildlife habitats, and assisting animals in distress. IFAW seeks to motivate the public to prevent cruelty to animals and to promote animal welfare and conservation policies that advance the well being of both animals and people.

IFAW is determined that liberalized trade regimes, such as the FTAA, should not erode existing protections for animals, nor impede the formulation of new protections. In their present form, however, the FTAA and other trade agreements pose an enormous threat to animals and animal habitats worldwide..18

GATT, WTO & NAFTA rulings that have impacted on Animal Welfare

The FTAA is continuing a trend whereby the legitimacy of current and future legislation that seeks to protect animals and the environment is questionable in the context of free trade. To date, free trade under the auspices of GATT, the WTO and NAFTA has had a devastating impact on animal and environmental protection legislation. Whenever a nation has challenged an animal protection regulation, the relevant authority has ruled that regulation to be an illegal trade barrier. The nation that has enacted the offending rules must either change its law or pay a heavy financial penalty. Most of these animal welfare issues affected by free trade relate to the method of production (the processes by which animals are raised, trapped, transported etc.), the so-called production and process methods (PPMs). In the eyes of the WTO, dolphin friendly tuna is indistinguishable from tuna caught by encircling dolphins, and, shrimp caught by boats with turtle excluder devices is the same as shrimp caught without turtle conservation methods. There are many examples ranging from the use of hormones in cattle to cosmetic testing on animals, all with a common thread: animal welfare sacrificed in the name of free trade.

Despite the WTO ruling in the Beef Hormone dispute above, the EU to its credit continues to ban hormone treated beef. The US therefore has been authorized to apply retaliatory trade measures to EU imports. For nearly a decade now, the EU has paid a costly economic price to maintain precautionary health safeguards for its citizens.

STEEL JAW LEGHOLD TRAPS

The EU banned the use of the steel-jaw leghold trap in 1995. The United States and other fur-exporting countries were given notice that as of January 1, 1996, furs and fur products from thirteen commonly trapped species would not be accepted for import into the EU unless the exporting country had banned the use of steel-jaw leghold traps or adopted internationally agreed-upon humane trapping methods. The US and Canada, pressured by local commercial interests, threatened a WTO challenge to the EU ban if it was implemented against imports. As the EU did not believe it could successfully defend the ban against a WTO challenge, it considerably weakened the effect of its ban. The EU then tried to negotiate humane trapping standards with the US and Canada. However, the final agreement allowed, for the foreseeable future, the import of fur caught with steel-jaw leghold traps. This is yet another example of how commercial interests have used the WTO to undermine legitimate environmental and animal protection legislation.

DRIFTNET FISHING

In December 1991, the United Nations General Assembly passed a resolution calling for a global moratorium on all high-seas driftnet fishing in the world's oceans. To implement this resolution, the US enacted the 1992 High Seas Driftnet Fisheries Enforcement Act, which, among other things, prohibits the import of fish from countries that continue to illegally driftnet. As a result of the US Driftnet Act, several countries ceased high-seas driftnet fishing. Italy, however, did not, and as of 1998 still had nearly 600 driftnet vessels on the high seas. However, Italy continues to export fish into the US. The WTO dispute resolution rules, and the subsequent environmental losses as a result of WTO panel rulings, have all had a chilling effect -- in this case, on the enforcement of US environmental and animal protection legislation. Despite nearly a decade of persistent urging by animal and environmental advocates, two lawsuits, and the fact that the United Nations calls annually for the cessation of high seas driftnet fishing, the US has yet to actively enforce the Driftnet Act.

EGG LABELLING

In 1992, the European Commission, fearing a WTO challenge, dropped a proposal to require mandatory labelling of all eggs on the basis of animal welfare criteria. More recently, the European Commission put forward a proposal to modify the conditions in which laying hens are kept in the EU, in particular by increasing the size of cage space for each hen. The proposal recognizes that these improvements in animal welfare will result in higher costs, which will make EU eggs more expensive than eggs from other countries where animal welfare standards are lower. Unfortunately, the WTO does not allow distinction among products based upon methods of production, and forbids the use of trade barriers that favour domestic industry. Thus, the net result of this proposed legislation will be local "humane" egg producers losing market share to foreign "inhumane" egg producers..19

PUPPY MILLS

Canada enacted legislation with the intention of protecting consumers from purchasing US bred puppies with congenital defects. The US puppy mill industry challenged the legislation under NAFTA, which led to a compromise on Canada's part, whereby shipments of puppies into Canada would be checked for signs of health problems at the border. If any animals showed signs of illness the entire load would be denied entry. Unfortunately the compromise kneecapped the original intent of the legislation as most congenital defects only manifest themselves at later stages in the animal's life, and will not be picked up by a cursory border inspection.

COSMETIC TESTING

In response to public demand, EU legislation was adopted in 1993 to prevent the use of animals in cosmetic testing from 1998 onwards. However because the measure was thought to be incompatible with the WTO, it was not implemented. On April 3, 2001, the European Parliament voted to ban sales of all new cosmetic products tested on animals. Pending approval from the 15 European Union member nations, the legislation would immediately prohibit animal tested cosmetics for which alternative testing exists. By January 2005, the ban also would apply to all new cosmetics using animal-tested ingredients, even if alternative tests have not been developed. The ban also would apply to imported products. While this legislation is welcomed, it is a greatly diluted version of the original proposal adopted in 1993 by the EU. This weakened legislation is due entirely to the WTO.

The FTAA's Potential Impact on Animal Welfare

Given that the FTAA, as currently proposed, contains many of the same provisions as the above-mentioned free trade regimes, this Agreement has the potential to undermine all existing national animal protection legislation in the Hemisphere, and impede the adoption of further protections. For example, Canadian laws that deal with animals and the environment are potential casualties if Canada joins the FTAA. The Species at Risk Act (SARA), currently under consideration by the Canadian government, appears to be in the process of being weakened by the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade (DFAIT) to ensure it's compliance with the WTO before it has even been enacted. The FTAA will present even more stringent compliance problems. As further examples, The Meat Inspection Act and The Health of Animals Act deal with the design and condition of slaughterhouses; slaughter procedures; goads and electrical prods and their usage; care of animals prior to slaughter; export, import and transportation of animals that are infirm, ill, injured or fatigued; food, water, rest and care during transport etc. Many aspects of these two Acts that deal with the humane care of farm animals can be challenged under the FTAA as barriers to trade. IFAW is not opposed to trade, however trade at the expense of animal and environmental legislation and standards is unacceptable. The FTAA in its existing form presents a very real threat both to existing and future animal and environment protection legislation and efforts. Consequently an extensive reworking of this agreement is in order, with a primary focus on harmonizing it with existing national legislation that strives to protect animals, the environment and people from harm. The public places a high priority on the proper treatment of animals and the FTAA should reflect this priority.