From apfischer at igc.org Sat Feb 3 03:49:04 2001 From: apfischer at igc.org (A. Paige Fischer) Date: Fri, 02 Feb 2001 10:49:04 -0800 Subject: [asia-apec 1727] Please endorse APEC forest trade letter Message-ID: <4.3.2.7.2.20010202104419.00bd1bb0@pop.igc.org> [The deadline for endorsements for this letter has been extended until February 9. Please sign on if you haven't already.] Dear Asia-Pacific activists: The Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) has targeted numerous forest protections as trade barriers in its recent "Study of Non-Tariff Measures (NTMs) in the Forest Sector." Examples of NTMs listed in the study include logging bans, forest certification, raw log export bans and protections against invasive species in such countries as Indonesia, Malaysia, Papua New Guinea, Chile, Australia, New Zealand and the USA. The study implies that these forest protection measures may be eliminated in pending forest liberalization discussions. Please endorse the following letter, written by Pacific Environment, Sierra Club, Friends of the Earth and others, demanding that the US Trade Representative halt trade negotiations that threaten forest protections and conduct environmental reviews and consult citizens on forest trade proposals. By Friday, February 9 please: 1) Read the following letter that US environmental groups submitted in response to a request for comment from the US Trade Representative (USTR). 2) Send your name, title, organization and contact information to Paige Fischer 510-251-8838 (fax). We will add your name to the list of endorsers and resubmit the letter on Friday, February 9. We will also let you know of any responses we receive. Thank you for your support! Paige Fischer perc@igc.org February 9, 2001 Barbara Norton, Director of Information Industry and Chemical Industry Trade Policy Office of the US Trade Representative 600 17th Street N.W. Washington D.C. 20508 Fax: 202-395-9674 RE: Comments from Interested Parties on the APEC Study of Non-Tariff Measures in the Forest Sector. Dear Ms. Norton: The Pacific Environment and Resources Center and the other undersigned groups thank the USTR for providing an opportunity for interested parties to comment on the "APEC Study of Non-Tariff Measures in the Forest Sector" as stated in an October 30 memorandum from Acting Assistant US Trade Representative, Dominic Bianchi. The undersigned # organization from # countries submit their views to you on the content of the APEC NTM study and the process that the USTR is following in its work on Non-Tariff Measures. The study offers an alarming "laundry list" of potential trade barriers, many of which we consider to be legitimate environmental safeguards. However, the study does not refer to any specific proposed actions upon which to comment, leaving us to assume that the measures identified as NTMs may actually be considered for elimination in APEC. We hope our comments will impact the course of NTM discussions at APEC and other trade fora. COMMENTS ON PROCESS In our view the APEC NTM study's listing of a large number of forest conservation and sustainable management measures as trade barriers warrants a re-evaluation based on US Government environmental objectives and a closer consultation with stakeholders. We call on the USTR to reconcile the APEC NTM initiative with its publicly stated commitment (December 2, 1999) to opposing trade liberalization that threatens legitimate forest protection measures. We also would like to know how the USTR plans to follow the guidelines for environmental reviews of trade initiatives in natural resource sectors under Executive Order 13141. We would like to provide comments on the study but also want to understand how to make our comments as pertinent and useful as possible. In our August 29 letter to USTR, some of the undersigned groups sought clarification on the purpose and process for the NTM study review. We requested more information about any US proposals regarding NTMs and the forestry experts group and the USTR's plans for incorporating public comment into NTM discussions. The USTR has neither acted on our August 29 recommendations nor met our requests for more information. We feel that public consultation on the APEC NTM study has been less than adequate. For example, less than half of the seven organizations that signed the August 29th letter received the October 30th notification about the comment period on the study. We hope that USTR will correct lapses in the notification process and ensure that the public has full opportunity to comment on trade liberalization initiatives, especially in matters of environmental protection and natural resource management. We also urge the USTR to follow through with its September 13 commitment, in a letter to Pacific Environment and Resources Center, to "consulting carefully with interested stakeholders to take fully into account the environmental implications - whether positive or negative - of particular NTMs here at home and in other countries." The undersigned groups ask that the USTR provide us with information about mechanisms for public dialogue and how interested parties can participate in discussions about NTMs at APEC and other fora. We would like information about the proposed forestry experts group, how it relates to NTM identification and liberalization, and how it will pursue the environmental objectives of the US Government and its constituents. COMMENTS ON CONTENT We are extremely concerned about the potential implications of the study, especially the listing of a large number of forest conservation and sustainable management measures as NTMs and the suggestion that they are unacceptable impediments to trade. The study also implies an increase in the volume of traded forest products, underscoring the need for adopting - not eliminating - environmental safeguards to mitigate forest destruction. We are concerned in particular with the study's listing of certification and recycled content policies, logging bans, raw log export restrictions and phytosanitary standards as NTMs that might potentially face removal. It is clear that the elimination of many of these important safeguards by APEC or any other trade forum will negatively impact forests in the US and around the world. We also find to be problematic the ambiguous and often contradictory way in which NTMs are defined because it results in the inclusion of a number of environmental measures that should not be in the purview of trade negotiators. The study has sought to describe and analyze a large number of policies that may have an impact on trade. This could conceivably include the universe of governmental as well as private sector policies, all of which could theoretically present some impediment to trade. The focus on "socially and environmentally motivated NTMs" is contradictory. On the one hand, the authors find that "environmental NTMs are not technically trade impediments" and on the other hand define NTMs as "restrictions which act as [trade] impediments." Included in the list of "NTMs" are legitimate environmental policies and initiatives such as certification and recycled content policies, logging bans, raw log export restrictions and phytosanitary standards. Inclusion under the rubric of "NTM" implies that all these measures are categorically trade-restrictive policies and that increasing the volume of trade has de facto priority over a country's domestic environmental goals. We find the inclusion of the following categories and specific forest protection measures for potential liberalization unacceptable. We propose that the categories and examples of forest protection measures listed below be removed entirely from any list of NTMs that the US will consider for potential elimination. We also may contest the inclusion of other environmental protections in subsequent NTM lists and negotiations. Environmental Protections that should not be listed as NTMs: LOGGING BANS AND HARVEST RESTRICTIONS: The authors themselves have pointed to logging bans that had the desired effect of curbing massive deforestation, erosion and flooding. A number of bans in place in the US and elsewhere are legitimate measures to protect habitat for endangered species. Examples listed in the study include the logging ban that China instituted to curb massive deforestation that has led to erosion and flooding, the US Endangered Species Act which restricts logging in certain areas to conserve habitat and New Zealand's Forest Amendment Action which prohibits natural forest logging without an approved sustainable management plan. SUBSIDIES AND INCENTIVES FOR AFFORESTATION: When applied in the appropriate context, these are important incentives for reclamation of degraded lands and protection of natural forestlands. They also have the potential to stimulate local communities towards sustainable development. Examples listed in the study include the financial incentives that China, the Republic of Korea and the US provide for reforestation and afforestation, and Thailand's government funded tree planting schemes for community forestry. RECYCLING AND EMISSION CONTROL POLICIES: Measures are in place in the US and other APEC member countries that reduce the use of toxic chemicals and prevent non-recycled paper from out-competing recycled paper. Examples listed in the study include Japan's restrictions on formaldehyde emissions from building products and limits on brightness in paper that prevent non-recycled paper from out-competing recycled paper, the US' minimum standards for waste paper content in newsprint, and the Republic of Korea's ban on imports of wood preservative chemicals and wood treated with such chemicals. PROCUREMENT AND USAGE POLICIES: Local and national procurement policies, especially requirements for recycled content, can have a significant positive effect on forest conservation. Examples cited in the study include state and local governments' environmental specifications for wood products used in public projects, the US federal minimum recycled content law of 40% and the measures that the Government of Japan is taking to significantly reduce wasteful plywood use within three years. CERTIFICATION AND ECO-LABELLING INITIATIVES: Certification and eco-labeling are natural market responses to the demand for more environmentally responsible products. Such programs do not belong in the study or in any list of NTMs to be negotiated, particularly if they are private, voluntary efforts to promote use of eco-friendly products, such as the US Certified Forest Products Council, the UK 1995+ Group, Green Seal, and the Forest Stewardship Council. LOG EXPORT BANS: When applied alongside domestic conservation measures, export bans or limits, both in the US and in the Asia-Pacific region, can stimulate more efficient use of raw materials and help take the pressure off of the national forest estate. Examples listed in the study include restrictions in the US, Indonesia, Vietnam, Papua New Guinea on the export of unprocessed wood such as raw logs to stimulate local and more efficient processing and to reduce volume of wood extracted from forests. PROTECTIONS AGAINST EXOTIC PESTS AND DISEASES: Phytosanitary measures have been imposed by several APEC member countries to control transmission of pests and disease. Where there has been shown to be a real danger, such policies have been recognised as legitimate defenses. Examples listed in the study include phytosanitary measures in Australia that require kiln drying and restrict imports of sawn timber containing bark, measures in Japan that require inspection and fumigation of logs under all circumstances, measures in Mexico that require all US sawn timber to be certified to have come from pest-free areas, and measures in the US to require that solid wood packing material from China be heat treated or fumigated. The study's quantitative analysis projects an increase in volume of traded forest products, which only underscores the need for maintaining or enhancing - not eliminating - environmental safeguards to prevent forest degradation or destruction. It is clear that the potential elimination of many of these important safeguards by APEC or any other trade forum will negatively impact forests in the US and around the world. Unfortunately neither APEC nor the USTR have taken any visible steps toward reviewing the potential environmental impacts of such actions. Projections that would significantly increase pressure on forests: REMOVING ALL EXPORT AND IMPORT TARIFFS AND SUBSIDIES would increase output of forest products of $2 billion, implying an increased impact on forests. REMOVING INDONESIA'S LOG EXPORT RESTRICTION would increase exports from $60 million to $900 million, implying an increased impact on already overcut forests. This would depress global log prices and increase global wood, pulp and paper production by $80 - $90 million. REMOVING THE CANADA-US SOFTWOOD LUMBER AGREEMENT, which attempts to rectify the unfair advantage Canada's forest sector has over the US due to its subsidies, would increase Canada's lumber exports to the USA by 7.5% to 10% and Canada's lumber exports to all APEC countries by 4.6% to 6.2%, resulting in additional environmental impacts on Canada's forests. ELIMINATING OR PROHIBITING THE USE OF FOREST CERTIFICATION and labeling mechanisms would increase forest product exports from many countries with already heavily impacted forests and poor environmental safeguards. Recommendations: The APEC Study of Non-Tariff Measures in the Forest Sector portends a potentially dangerous turn in trade liberalization. It is of great concern to us that the USTR and APEC may negotiate a trade initiative that would increase the amount of wood harvested and traded from our planet's dwindling forests at the same time that it takes away the important protections and fair trade tools that citizens need to protect these forests. In order to prevent the improper treatment of legitimate national policies as items for negotiation in trade talks, we recommend that the USTR take the following actions: 1. Demonstrate its commitment to its December 2nd statement to oppose trade liberalization that threatens legitimate environmental protections and ultimately withdraw from all negotiations that include elimination of the above listed forest protection measures; 2. Conduct a thorough environmental review before proceeding with any forest sector NTM negotiations in accordance with Executive Order #13141; 3. Solicit informed and meaningful comments on the APEC study and any follow-up actions from a broad sector of civil society in the US and internationally; 4. Clarify its plan for discussing forest sector NTMs in other trade fora besides APEC, such as WTO, FTAA and bilateral negotiations; 5. Make available the following information to the undersigned groups and the general public so we can make more informed comments: * Proposal and timeframe for discussing NTMs at APEC, * Proposal for the forestry experts group, * Plan for incorporating public comment into the US position on the APEC study. We hope the USTR will view our comments as recommendations for how to proceed further with USG and APEC treatment of environmental policies in the trade arena. The USTR must follow through with its commitment to safeguarding environmental measures and communicate this position effectively to the APEC members, in bilateral and multilateral negotiations as well as future studies. Thank you for your consideration of this matter. We look forward to your response. Please do not hesitate to contact us if you have any questions. Sincerely, Paige Fischer, Forest and Trade Program Director, and Doug Norlen, Policy Director Pacific Environment Michael Brune, Forest Campaigner Rainforest Action Network, California Jim Jontz, Executive Director American Lands Alliance Mike Leahy, Natural Resources Counsel, and Carroll Muffett, International Counsel Defenders of Wildlife Bill Mankin, Director, and Jennifer McLean, Policy Analyst Global Forestry Policy Project Michael Marx, Executive Director ForestEthics, California Victor Menotti, Environment Program Director International Forum on Globalization, California Joe Scott, Conservation Director Northwest Ecosystem Alliance, Washington Dan Seligman, Director of Just Trade Campaign Sierra Club Allan Thornton, Executive Director Environmental Investigation Agency, Washington DC David Waskow, Friends of the Earth, US Elizabeth Ellis The Certified Wood Products Website, Washington Tim Hermach Native Forest Council, Oregon Rachel Martin Allegheny Defense Project, Pennsylvania Bob Mueller Virginians for Wilderness, Virginia Rick Steiner The Coastal Coalition, Alaska Doug Cornett Northwoods Wilderness Recovery, Michigan Jen Creasy Shenandoah Ecosystems Defense Group, Virginia Tracy Davids Southern Appalachian Biodiversity Project, North Carolina Mary Byrd Davis Yggdrasil Institute, Kentucky Christina Wulf Virginia Forest Watch, Virginia Colleen McCrory Valhalla Wilderness Society, British Columbia, Canada Tyhson Banighen, Executive Director TIES - Turtle Island Earth Stewards, British Columbia, Canada AnnaMaria Valastro Peaceful Parks Coalition, Ontario, Canada James Tweedie Castle-Crown Wilderness Coalition, Alberta, Canada W. O. Pruitt Department of Zoology, University of Manitoba, Manitoba,Canada Philip Thomas International Conifer Conservation Programme, Royal Botanic Garden Edinburgh, Scotland Melissa Rengananthan Malaysia Nature Society, Malaysia Adelbert Gangai Conservation Melanesia, Papua New Guinea Fiodor Vladimirovich Kronikovsky Taiga Ecological Group, Russia Anatoly Lebedev Bureau for Regional Oriental Campaigns (BROC), Russia Valentin Zabortsev, Krasnoyarsk Regional "Angara-Enisei Rescue ( Rehabilitaton)"Association, Russia Tanty S. Thamrin Wallace Forest Ecological Protection, Indonesia Yasar Ozturk Arkadas ?evre Grubu (Friends Environmental Group), Turkey Umit ?zt?rk Greenscreen, England Chantal Marijnissen, FERN, England Mihoko Shimamoto Faculty of Social Sciences, Hosei University, JAPAN Takahiro Kohama Japan Tropical Forest Action Network (JATAN), Japan Toyoyuki Kawakami APEC Monitor NGO Network, Japan Patricia Vera Osses Defensores del Bosque Chileno, Chile cc: Frank Loy, Department of State Ian Bowles, Council on Environmental Quality David Sandalow, Department of State Mary Latimer, Office of the USTR Barbara Weisel, Office of the USTR From notoapec at clear.net.nz Sat Feb 3 04:41:23 2001 From: notoapec at clear.net.nz (APEC Monitoring Group) Date: Sat, 3 Feb 2001 08:41:23 +1300 Subject: [asia-apec 1728] ADB Meeting in Hawai'i: Extra security for bank meeting to cost taxpayers millions Message-ID: <001101c08d50$2a690680$7c84a7cb@notoapec> Extra security for bank meeting to cost taxpayers millions The Asian Development Bank,a target of anti-globalization groups, will meet in Honolulu By Gordon Y.K. Pang Honolulu Star-Bulletin, February 1, 2001 http://starbulletin.com/2001/02/01/news/story7.html It will cost taxpayers an estimated $6.5 million to $7 million to provide security for the five-day Asian Development Bank conference in May. But while the extra security is needed for possible protests, the May 7-11 gathering of the world's financial leaders at the Hawai'i Convention Center is also expected to pump $17 million to $20 million into the Hawaii economy. "We have no doubt there will be a demonstration in conjunction with this meeting," said Bob Fishman, chief executive officer for the Hawaii Tourism Authority during a briefing before a City Council Committee yesterday. The purpose of the Manila-based bank, which has 60 member nations led by the United States and Japan, is to eliminate poverty in Asia. But environmentalists and human rights groups are at odds with many of the organization's globalization policies. Expected at the conference are 500 to 600 official delegates, 1,000 to 1,500 bank officials and other guests, and 400 to 500 media. Tradition dictates the leader of the host country attends. "We have very strong reason to believe President Bush will be here to open the meeting," Fishman said. What Hawaii law enforcement officials want to avoid is a repeat of the rampant -- and highly publicized -- rioting that marred and cut short the World Trade Organization's December 1999 meeting in Seattle. Fishman said the violence there was one of the reasons bank officials chose to come to Hawaii. There were an estimated 4,000 demonstrators at the bank's last meeting in Chiang Mai, Thailand, this past May, according to news reports. On the closing day, about 2,000 riot police were deployed to keep at bay about 1,200 Thais who protested that bank-financed projects like dams have ruined their lives. "They were orderly, they were loud, they made their point," said Fishman, who attended the proceedings. "They were able to succeed in getting world media attention, which was the purpose of their demonstration." A group of federal, state and city law enforcement officials have been meeting for months, Fishman said. "You can rest assured that every potential upset to the equilibrium of our community is being brainstormed and prepared for." About $500,000 is needed immediately to purchase equipment, Assistant Police Chief Boisse Correa said, part of some $6 million the police department will expend in association with the conference. The bulk of that will be for overtime and other personnel costs, he said. All leaves and vacation among police officers have been canceled, while many of those normally on desk duty will be uniformed and on the streets, he said. Correa said among the inconveniences residents should expect are road closures and diversions and the shutdown of area parks to give law enforcement staging areas. Councilman John Henry Felix said he has some worries about the funding for the preparation. But Fishman said he expects a good portion of the security costs to be reimbursed by the federal government. The city of Seattle got $4.5 million, he said. Both Fishman and Correa emphasized that they do not want to discourage protest, only ensure that it is peaceful. "We want the people of the world to know that there is a civil and civilized way for (protesters) to get in front of a camera and make their statements," Fishman said. From notoapec at clear.net.nz Tue Feb 13 11:09:21 2001 From: notoapec at clear.net.nz (APEC Monitoring Group) Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2001 15:09:21 +1300 Subject: [asia-apec 1729] ADB in Hawaii - media story Message-ID: <002e01c09561$fd036b80$cb85a7cb@notoapec> Send in the Goons Robert Rees Honolulu Weekly, Feb. 7, 2001 The Honolulu City Council committees on Transportation and Planning and Public Safety met jointly on Jan. 31 to discuss a single agenda item, the plans to curtail free speech when the Asia Development Bank meets in Hawaii at the Hawaii Convention Center. Attending the May 7-11 ADB meeting will be representatives of 60 owning countries, 1200 investment bankers and as many as 400 journalists. The Hawaii Tourism Authority considers hosting the event a coup, and the HTA's executive director, Bob Fishman, was on hand to tell the Council how important it is that Hawaii "makes a good impression" on these cash-laden and opinion-leading visitors. Fishman warned that the opponents of globalization have learned to utilize international conferences as venues for expressing concerns. Hawaii, hungry for business, was chosen for the ADB conference because it promised an oasis of security. To hold up its end of the deal, Honolulu plans to spend an extra $7 million on crowd control. Rationalized Fishman, "We are training and developing a police force for a higher level of proficiency that makes Hawaii a more attractive place." Assistant Chief of Police Boisse Correa assured the Council that "We're on top of this," but added, "We need more riot equipment." Correa noted also that "the National Guard is working with us," and "all leaves will be canceled." Correa didn't disclose that the HPD has asked the state judiciary to cancel all scheduled court appearances by HPD officers during the conference, and has arranged for alternative sites for arraignment and detention of protesters. Further, as first reported by the Hawaii Chapter of Refuse & Resist, the City Council is rushing to pass new ordinances to make the job of the HPD easier. Says Council Chair Jon Yoshimura, "We are giving the HPD additional tools to deal with protesters. These tools are patterned after what Los Angeles has done."(Among other things, it will be illegal to wear a mask "with the intent to commit a crime," police dogs will be allowed in our parks and campers will be arrested.) Correa did reveal that certain city parks will be shut down. Ostensibly this is to provide staging areas for the HPD in its new role, as an occupying army, but it will have the effect of choking off any opportunity for protesters to legally congregate in our public forums. This, in turn, will force the protesters to the streets. Getting into this spirit of Dr. Strangelove, Transportation director Cheryl Soon noted solemnly that bus routes might have to be altered. Further, intoned Soon, "We will give out [revised bus schedules and routes] only on a need to know basis." Of special concern was Fishman's promise, "We will not tolerate excessive inconvenience?" As a policy, this is an excuse for stifling free speech based on content. In fact, if we applied Fishman's convenience rule to the Martin Luther King Jr. parade financed by the city, or to the Convention Center itself, neither would exist. It's enough to make you want to protest. In fact, with President Bush possibly on hand, the international forum provides a grand opportunity for a highly visible demonstration on behalf of freedom for diversity and dissent. From kevin.li at graduate.hku.hk Tue Feb 13 13:54:13 2001 From: kevin.li at graduate.hku.hk (Kevin Yuk-shing Li) Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2001 12:54:13 +0800 Subject: [asia-apec 1730] FT: Poorest Asian countries face cuts by ADB Message-ID: <3A88BDF5.BD231C5C@graduate.hku.hk> Financial Times February 12, 2001 Poorest Asian countries face cuts By Hugh Williamson in Manila Poor Asian countries will from next year face cuts in concessional loans from the Asian Development Bank (ADB) if they fare poorly on new performance criteria that include ratings for governance and corruption. In many countries, "poor government systems are holding back economic development", said Clay Wescott, a senior ADB public administration specialist, on the fringes of a regional conference organised by the bank on reducing poverty. Separately, the Manila-based bank presented a relatively upbeat outlook for the achievement of an internationally agreed target of halving extreme global poverty in the 20 years up to 2015. Mr Wescott said the ADB was under pressure from western donors to link soft loans from its Asian Development Fund (ADF) to the performance of recipient countries on issues including progress on economic reforms, poverty reduction, and governance. Donors last year agreed on a $5.6bn ADF replenishment. In governance assessments already completed in Thailand and Vietnam, the ADB found that approximately 30 per cent of public expenditures in both countries "vanished via fraud and corruption", Mr Wescott said. The ratings, which aimed to help recipient countries, would not be published, he said, adding however that it was important that countries now know "they are competing against each other". On halving poverty by 2015, the East Asian region had "already reached the target" and south Asia was "on track" to do so, Karti Sandilya, manager of the ADB's poverty reduction unit, said. Average levels of extreme poverty in East Asia fell from 28 per cent in 1990 to 15 per cent in 1998, Mr Sandilya said, adding that the figure was now 14 per cent or below. The average in South Asia fell from 44 per cent in 1990 to 40 per cent in 1998, but was projected to decline sharply to 14 per cent by 2008, he said. Almost 900m Asians live in extreme poverty, two-thirds of the world's poor. The commitment to halve the number of people living on the equivalent of $1 a day between 1995 and 2015 was agreed at a series of United Nations conferences in the early 1990s, and reconfirmed at the UN Millennium summit last year. The UN's International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD) said this week that the 2015 target would probably not be met, largely because attention and resources had shifted from reducing rural poverty, even though most poor people live in the countryside. Referring to IFAD's pessimistic view, Mr Sandilya agreed rural poverty was a key problem but said the ADB "stands by" its assessment that Asia can meet the 2015 target. Mr Sandilya said the conference - which involved 200 delegates from Asian governments, civil society, academia and donor organisations - had agreed that while economic growth was vital to reducing poverty, "not all growth reduced poverty to the same extent". The impact of growth depended on levels of inequality, penetration of new technology and other factors, he said. From notoapec at clear.net.nz Wed Feb 14 03:59:05 2001 From: notoapec at clear.net.nz (APEC Monitoring Group) Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2001 07:59:05 +1300 Subject: [asia-apec 1731] APEC SOM - Planning APEC Agenda for 2001 Message-ID: <001201c095ef$14c8cc00$2084a7cb@notoapec> APEC Senior Officials Meet in Beijing to Plan 2001 Agenda BEIJING, Feb 12, 2001 -- (Agence France Presse) Asian Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) officials began meeting in Beijing Monday to set an annual agenda culminating in an informal leadership summit in Shanghai in October. Chinese Vice Foreign Minister Wang Guangya opened the meeting with an outline of the 2001 APEC theme: "Achieving Common Prosperity through Participation and Cooperation." Top of the agenda will be pushing forward electronic commerce among the 21-member nations, while reviving momentum on trade and investment liberalization will also remain an APEC concern, Wang said. "We must bear in mind that APEC was not born of homogeneity amongst the leadership," Wang said. Some 260 government officials, business representatives and academics are taking part in the meeting. ((c) 2001 Agence France Presse) From amittal at foodfirst.org Sat Feb 17 06:03:10 2001 From: amittal at foodfirst.org (Anuradha Mittal) Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2001 13:03:10 -0800 Subject: [asia-apec 1732] IFG Teach-In on Technology and Globalization Message-ID: <0.700000824.1965845821-212058698-982357390@topica.com> To our members, Come to this special, in-depth seminar and discussion on the present and future of our technologically driven society, the IFG Teach-In on Technology and Globalization, at Hunter College, 695 Park Avenue, New York Saturday and Sunday, February 24 and 25. Among those participating are Food First's Co-director Anuradha Mittal, recently returned from testifying for New Zealand's Royal Commission on Genetic Engineering, Food First's founder Frances Moore LappŽ who with her daughter has just completed a new book, and Food First Board members Walden Bellow (Executive Director - Focus on the Global South) and Jerry Mander(President - International Forum on Globalization). The International Forum on Globalization, New York Open Center, The International Center for Technology Assessment, The Turning Point Project, Lapis Magazine, and the Nation Institute Present a Teach-In on Technology and Globalization Saturday, February 24 & Sunday, February 25, 2001 Hunter College, 695 Park Avenue New York City 40 Speakers + 25 Workshops Our society places all its bets on technology as the panacea for our ills. But it may be time to reconsider. Far from Paradise-on-Earth, we are rolling toward ecological collapse: rapid climate change and rising seas; ozone holes; loss of species and habitat; accelerated cancer rates; terminal forms of air, water, and soil pollution, as well as unprecedented levels of social, political, and personal alienation and despair. All are rooted in the excesses of technology. Now a terrifying new generation of technologies - from biotechnology to eugenics to robotics to nanotechnology - are raising the stakes and bringing unprecedented new threats to the planet. Meanwhile the new telecommunications technologies that we had hoped would bring democracy and empowerment may be producing the opposite: rampant commercialization, global corporate concentration and mergers, and centralization rather than decentralization. In the era of economic globalization, the problems are magnified a millionfold. All-powerful global bureaucracies such as the World Trade Organization (WTO) and others are preventing the ability of communities or nation-states to slow the rate at which giant global corporations freely exploit the planet, dominate social systems, destroy local economies, and deploy the most powerful and dangerous technologies in history. This dynamic interaction between new technology, economic globalization, and centralized global power is arguably the most important condition of the New Millennium, but it's rarely publicly debated or exposed to democratic processes. This landmark event at Hunter College, February 24 and 25, 2001, hopes to launch that debate. Who should control the evolution of technology? What are the intrinsic consequences of certain technologies in terms of health, the environment, social justice and democracy, religion, and how we view ourselves and the cosmos? Has science failed? Why have there been no referenda on the most dangerous technological trends: nuclear, biotechnology, transport, the globalization of industrial agriculture, corporate power, and global media concentration? Do the new telecommunications serve democracy or the opposite? How can we change paths? How can we create more viable, local democratic systems that serve different values? These are a few of the questions to be discussed in two days of plenaries and workshops, led by some of the worldâs greatest thinkers on technology, globalization, and democracy. Please join us. For Tickets contact the New York Open Center Registration 212-219-2527 ext. 110; or 1-888-629-9269 fax: 212-226-4056; email: nyocreg@aol.com For Information visit the IFG website at www.ifg.org TICKET PRICES: Saturday $30, Sunday $25, Both days $50 Half price for students, IFG & NYOC members. Participating Speakers Jeremy Rifkin Foundation on Economic Trends; Author, The Biotech Century; Biosphere Politics Vandana Shiva Research Foundation for Science, Technology & Ecology (India); Author, Monoculture of the Mind; Biopiracy: the Plunder of Nature and Knowledge; Stolen Harvest Jerry Mander International Forum on Globalization; Author, Case Against the Global Economy; In the Absence of the Sacred; Four Arguments for the Elimination of Television Andrew Kimbrell International Center for Technology Assessment; Author, The Human Body Shop Paul Hawken Author, Natural Capitalism; The Ecology of Commerce Fritjof Capra Center for Ecoliteracy, Author; The Tao of Physics; The Turning Point Helena Norberg-Hodge International Society for Ecology and Culture; Author, Lessons from Ladakh Kirkpatrick Sale Author, Rebels Against the Future; Human Scale; Conquest of Paradise David Ehrenfeld Rutgers University; Author, The Arrogance of Humanism Maude Barlow Council of Canadians David Suzuki Host, "The Nature of Things" (Canadian Broadcast Corporation); Author, The Sacred Balance Richard Hayes Exploratory Initiative on the New Human Genetic Technologies Mark Crispin Miller Project on Media Ownership; Author, Boxed In: The Culture of TV Joan Gussow Former Chair, Department of Nutrition, Columbia University Debra Harry Indigenous People's Council on Biocolonialism Martin Teitel Council for Responsible Genetics; Author, Genetically Engineered Food: Changing the Nature of Nature; Rainforest in Your Kitchen Anuradha Mittal Co-Director, Institute for Food and Development Policy (Food First); Author, America Needs Human Rights Satish Kumar Editor, Resurgence Magazine Lori Wallach Public Citizen's Global Trade Watch; Co-Author, Whose Trade Organization? Steve Talbott The Nature Institute; Author, The Future Does Not Compute Langdon Winner Rensselaer Polytechnic Inst.; Author, Autonymous Technology; The Whale and the Reactor John Cavanagh Inst. for Policy Studies; Author, Global Dreams Chet Bowers Portland State U.; Author, Let Them Eat Data Walden Bello Focus on the Global South; Author, Dragons in Distress: Asiaâs Miracle Economics in Crisis Frances Moore LappŽ Author, Diet for a Small Planet Charlene Spretnak Author, Resurgence of the Real Randy Hayes Rainforest Action Network Karl Grossman State University of New York; Author, The Wrong Stuff; Weapons in Space Jackie Cabasso Western States Legal Foundation Jane Healey Author, Endangered Minds Bruce Gagnon Global Network Against Weapons and Nuclear Power in Space Pat Roy Mooney Rural Advancement Foundation International William L. Rukeyser Learning in the Real World Dr. Arpad Pusztai Former Senior Scientist, Rowett Research Institute And many others Saturday, February 24, 2001 Plenary Panels & Presentations: 9 am - 10 pm Technology & Globalization Overviews on the symbiotic relationship between new technology, global corporations, global bureaucracies, and their effects on social, political, and environmental concerns. Technology & the homogenization of global consciousness & culture The cultural and political consequences of global telecommunications, especially in the age of corporate consolidation. We will discuss global TV, the internet, e-commerce, and the impacts of technology in education. Systems of control: corporations & the bretton woods model Free trade and globalization are not inevitable, like evolution. We look at the systems that gave corporations dominance, and what we can do about it. New military technology & control from space Alarming new technologies will enable the U.S. military to carry out its stated new goal to function as protector (from space) of global corporations and their investments. Globalization of industrial agriculture & food Mechanized, high-intensive, corporate monocultural agriculture is being promoted as the only way to feed the world, but in fact, it promotes hunger, drives farmers off their lands, creates ecological havoc, and lowers food quality. Technology, globalization & nature The prime victim of the technology-globalization symbiosis is the natural world. Through trade deals, nature loses its protection; through technology, nature is assaulted as never before. Media, meanwhile, train our world view so we think this is perfectly normal. Special evening panel: biotechnology & the post biological sciences Remaking the nature of nature, science now takes us beyond the biological realm to a post biological era that includes promoting biotechnology, eugenics, nanotechnology, and robotics. This leads us to consider crucial questions about the irreversible alteration of all life on earth. Sunday, February 25, 2001 Workshops & Presentations: 9 am - 5 pm Partial List Flawed Paradigms of Science The Precautionary Principle: Guilty Until Proven Innocent In Perspective: Gandhi, Mumford, Ellul Systems of Agriculture: Global to Local Technology in the Third World Technology, Globalization, and Our Changing Concept of Nature Television and the Cloning of Cultures The Casino Economy: Instant Global Financial Movement & Speculation Is Technology Neutral? Computers in the Classroom Corporations as Technology The Merging of Humans and Machines Virtuality versus Community and Culture Indigenous Alternatives to Globalization Computers, Surveillance, and Privacy Computers and Work The Viability of Alternative Systems (Program subject to change) This event is not sponsored by or afÞliated with Hunter College Join the fight against hunger. For more information contact foodfirst@foodfirst.org. ____________________________________________________________ T O P I C A -- Learn More. Surf Less. Newsletters, Tips and Discussions on Topics You Choose. http://www.topica.com/partner/tag01 From amittal at foodfirst.org Sat Feb 17 07:57:26 2001 From: amittal at foodfirst.org (Anuradha Mittal) Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2001 14:57:26 -0800 Subject: [asia-apec 1733] Trader Joe's GMOs - From Greenpeace USA Message-ID: <0.700000824.229992367-212058698-982364246@topica.com> Greetings to all The press conference at Trader Joe's Headquarters in Los Angeles is currently going on. We tested products from Trader Joe's and found their cornmeal breadmix tested positive for GMOs. Hence we are asking them to follow the lead of their parent company, Aldi, and announce a GMO free policy. Please help us put pressure on this supermarket and call or fax today. Thanks. National Call-In and Fax-In Day to Trader Joe's TODAY ::: _______________________________________________________ On Thursday, February 15th, Greenpeace, GE Free L.A., Sierra Club Sustainable Food Task Force - Los Angeles chapter, and Community Alliance with Family Farmers (CAFF) will be holding a press conference in front of Trader Joe's corporate headquarters to make an important announcement regarding their use of genetically engineered ingredients. Your support is urgently needed! Call or fax Mr. Dan Bane, CEO of Trader Joe's, on Thursday, February 15th, and tell him to eliminate genetically engineered ingredients from Trader Joe's store brand products, just as their parent company in Europe, Aldi's, has already done. In the United States, Whole Foods and Wild Oats markets have already committed to eliminating genetically engineered ingredients from their store brands, if these national chains can do it, so can Trader Joe's! ---Call Trader Joe's at(626) 441 - 1177 ---Fax Trader Joe's at (626) 441 - 9573 ---Use our quick form to send a fax: http://truefoodnow.org/listmanager/takeaction.pl?action_id=27 Please forward this alert, and join us on this important day. Visit http://www.truefoodnow.org for more information. Beverley Thorpe Genetic Engineering Campaign Greenpeace USA 702 H Street NW, Suite 300 Washington, DC 20001 tel: 1 202 319 2412 fax: 1 202 884 7609 email: Beverley.Thorpe@dialb.greenpeace.org www.greenpeaceusa.org Join the True Food Network! www.truefoodnow.org Join the fight against hunger. For more information contact foodfirst@foodfirst.org. ____________________________________________________________ T O P I C A -- Learn More. Surf Less. Newsletters, Tips and Discussions on Topics You Choose. http://www.topica.com/partner/tag01 From amittal at foodfirst.org Thu Feb 22 12:38:20 2001 From: amittal at foodfirst.org (Anuradha Mittal) Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2001 19:38:20 -0800 Subject: [asia-apec 1734] Action Alert on FTAA Message-ID: <0.700000824.997702923-951758591-982813100@topica.com> An Action Alert from Public Citizen. Please Post Widely DON'T FORGET: Tomorrow is the day that EVERYONE calls their Members of Congress to tell them that citizens say "NO to NAFTA for the Americas - NO to the FTAA"! They're all at home on recess this week, so check your local blue pages for their home office numbers. Then call their trade staffers back in Washington via the Capitol switchboard at 202-224-3121 and/or their local offices ( see contact info for Bay Area legislators below) to deliver the same message. Check out the action alert below and pass it on to friends, family and activist allies. Please post widely! ACTION ALERT - ACTION ALERT - ACTION ALERT All-Call Day of Action Thursday, February 22: "NO NAFTA for the Americas - NO FTAA"! Thousands of fair trade activists delivered "wake-up calls" to the U.S. Congress last month to demand that our Representatives get involved in breaking the silence around secret negotiations to create "NAFTA for the Americas." Formally called the Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA), it is an expansion of NAFTA to all 35 countries in the western hemisphere but one (that's Cuba). We reminded Congress that FTAA is NAFTA all over again, and that we won't stand for sending living-wage jobs to union-busting sweatshops to save Big Business a buck, for endangering regulations that protect public health and safety and the environment, and the "investor-to-state" rules that allow corporations to sue governments -- at taxpayer expense! -- anytime they feel that laws designed to protect people and communities limit their profit margins. Now you have their attention. Last month, a bipartisan group of 63 Representatives sent a letter to the White House, demanding that the U.S. Trade Representative start consulting Congress about the negotiations, as required by the Constitution, and that the negotiations process be opened so that all documents on FTAA are available to the public. So Congress is growing more aware of our concerns. But the big challenges are still ahead of us! Trade negotiators are going ahead with planned meetings this April on FTAA -- without input from citizens or our elected representatives. We must keep the pressure on Members of Congress to join the fight against NAFTA for the Americas! HERE'S YOUR CHANCE: CONGRESS IS COMING HOME! The first recess period of the 107thCongress is coming up, February 16-26, and this is your chance to speak up again while they're on your home turf. YOU can help stop NAFTA for the Americas! This week, here's how: Get a meeting! The best way to make an impression is to talk to your Representative face to face. Put together a diverse group of people from your district (union representatives, environmental leaders, local officials, students, human rights advocates...) and request a meeting at your hometown office, or go on your own. Don't take no for an answer! If the Representative can't meet, find out if a staffer is available or ask about the schedule for town hall meetings so that you can address your concerns there. Talking points and sample meeting request letters are at www.tradewatch.org. Be part of the national All-Call Day on FTAA on Thursday, Feb. 22! Call your Representative and Senators at their district offices. These local numbers can be found in your phone book blue pages, or from their official websites (check www.house.gov and www.senate.gov). Then call their trade staffers in Washington through the Capitol Switchboard (202-224-3121). Ask them to commit to oppose the "NAFTA for the Americas"! Write a letter to the editor! Samples are online at www.tradewatch.org. If your Representative hasn't stated his or her position on "NAFTA for the Americas" yet, this is a good place to ask them, publicly, to do it -- especially if he or she turned down your request for a meeting! Report back! If your Representative or Senators tell you about their positions on FTAA, we want to know so that we can thank fair trade champions and keep the heat on those who favor profits over people. Call us at 202- 546-4996 and ask for the Global Trade Watch field team, or email alesha@citizen.org. Call: US Senator Barbara Boxer-   (202) 224-3553;   e-mail:     112 Hart Building, Washington, DC, 20510;    (415) 403-0100;  (415) 956-6701 (fax);   1700 Montgomery St. #240, SF/CA/94111;     US Senator Diane Feinstein-   (202) 224-3841, (202) 228-3954 (fax);   e-mail:     331 Hart Building, Washington, DC, 20510;   (415) 536-6868   525 Market St, #3670, SF/CA/94105;    US Congress Member Tom Lantos-   (202)  225-3531;   2217 Rayburn Bldg., Washington DC, 20515;   (650) 342-0300;  (415) 566-5257;   (650) 375-8270 (fax);  400 S. El Camino Real,    #410, San Mateo, CA, 94402;    US Congress Member Nancy Pelosi-   (202) 225-4965, (202) 225-8259 (fax);   e-mail:  ;   2457 Rayburn Bldg., Washington DC, 20515;   (415) 556-4862;   450 Golden Gate Ave, #145380, SF/CA/94102 For more information on "NAFTA for the Americas" and how YOU can be part of the "Campaign of Inquiry" to uncover the truth about these negotiations, visit www.tradewatch.org or call Public Citizen's Global Trade Watch at 202-546-4996. Alesha Daughtrey Senior Organizer/FTAA coordinator Public Citizen's Global Trade Watch +202-454-5103 (tel)/+202-547-7392 (fax) 215 Pennsylvania Avenue SE Washington, DC 20003 USA alesha@citizen.org www.tradewatch.org Join the fight against hunger. For more information contact foodfirst@foodfirst.org. ____________________________________________________________ T O P I C A -- Learn More. Surf Less. Newsletters, Tips and Discussions on Topics You Choose. http://www.topica.com/partner/tag01 From notoapec at clear.net.nz Mon Feb 26 17:42:15 2001 From: notoapec at clear.net.nz (notoapec@clear.net.nz) Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2001 08:42:15 +0000 Subject: [asia-apec 1735] NZ Herald Online Story - Australia accused of export foul play Message-ID: <200102251945.IAA22030@waklwh3.wilsonandhorton.co.nz> The following story has been sent to you by notoapec@clear.net.nz who feels it may be of interest. Senders email: notoapec@clear.net.nzMessage: From NZ Herald, Auckland, Feb 26 2000 --------------------------- 26/02/01 - Australia accused of export foul play By VERNON SMALL deputy political editor The Government fears Australia is using its close security relationship with the United States to stitch up a free-trade deal which could leave New Zealand out in the cold. New Zealand has been pushing for a free-trade agreement with the US, Singapore, Chile and Australia. Former President Bill Clinton made positive noises during his visit here for the 1999 Apec meeting, although there has been little progress from the US since then. But now the Australian Government is seeking a one-on-one deal with the US and could be "playing the security card" to steal a march on New Zealand, according to advice Foreign Affairs officials gave Prime Minister Helen Clark before her talks yesterday with her Australian counterpart, John Howard. New Zealand effectively pulled out of the three-way Anzus security pact by passing anti-nuclear laws in 1987. The US has since declared Anzus inoperative. But September 1 sees the 50th anniversary of the pact, and officials fear Australia will use the occasion to seek preferential access to the giant US economy. They are concerned that the Australian approach will let security issues spill over into trade - something once feared as a US retaliation to withdrawal from Anzus, but long since discounted. That could seriously reduce New Zealand's chances of striking a deal with the potential to deliver billions of dollars in economic rewards. However, officials hope the US will view Australia and New Zealand as a single trading bloc linked by the closer economic relations pact, and will be less enthusiastic about a bilateral deal. But New Zealand is taking no chances, pressing Australia for a joint approach to the US. Mr Howard said he had not discussed a review of Anzus during two hours of talks with Helen Clark in Auckland yesterday. He said they discussed free trade and trade deals with the US as well as their common view on the need for a new round of talks through the World Trade Organisation. "As far as a bilateral agreement between Australia and the United States is concerned, we are obviously prepared to see whether progress can be made towards that. "I think it is important not to unduly raise expectations, because there is no gain to Australia in such an arrangement unless there is significant give by the United States on critical issues." He said New Zealand would be kept fully informed of those discussions. Helen Clark said any trade agreement with the US must include agriculture. Australia and New Zealand had taken cases to the WTO claiming US protectionism, which was a major barrier to an accord. She said New Zealand still hoped for a free trade agreement encompassing three, four or five nations. It was not clear what priority President George W. Bush's Administration would give to bilateral agreements, or to Asia-Pacific deals versus Latin America, she said. "So at the moment the approaches are best described as exploratory." Mr Howard sent the ritual negative signals about New Zealand's level of defence spending, but stopped short of outright criticism, saying: "What New Zealand decides to do is a matter for New Zealand." However, he noted that Australia had set out a White Paper increasing its own defence spending. Helen Clark stressed the Coalition's plans for "substantial" expenditure on defence, starting with re-equipping the Army. "There is a lot to be done. New Zealand is not looking at cutting its defence spending. If anything it is likely to increase." She is understood to have told Mr Howard scheduled defence spending would deliver "depth not breadth" to New Zealand's capability. --------------------------- To view more stories please visit the NZ Herald Online at http://www.nzherald.co.nz From fod346 at hotmail.com Wed Feb 28 20:43:45 2001 From: fod346 at hotmail.com (Maq Ras) Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2001 16:43:45 +0500 Subject: [asia-apec 1736] Fw: Warm Welcome & Unexpected Hospitality Message-ID: ----- Original Message ----- From: SRC-A.L.Adv. To: Lead Cohort-7 World Friends, There is something that I want to share with you. As you may know that due to my association with Water related and Human Rights issues and LEAD I usually travel a lot and participate in a number of Int. Conferences and Seminars. In this regard during the last two years I have been to USA, Canada, China, UK, Indonesia, Singapore, South Africa, India, Thailand, Hong Kong, France, Holland, UAE, Sri Lanka, Belgium and other countries several times and as usual I met some remarkable personalities and exceptional hosts. What I observed that most of the time you unexpectedly meet few individuals who change your whole concept about strangers and host and neighboring countries and communities. People like Wolfgang Bosswick of Germany, Asif Alvi of Amsterdam, Zahid Makhdoom of Vancouver, Ramesh Kateja, S A Agarkar and Ashok Motani of Mumbai, Sarwar Bari, Ramachand Bhorani & Javed Soomro of London, Aijaz Mahar of Islamabad, Larry Lohmann of USA, Mohan Geehani of Dubai, Linda Hogan of Leeds, Ali Nawaz Memon, Badar Shaikh, Shahid Iqbal of USA, Najeeb Adam & Suraya Makhdoom of UK have proved that one can help and support an unknown stranger without having any intro or wave length purely on human grounds. We never met before (except few) did not know each other at all and had just exchange of few messages through lists. But I dont have the words to explain their warm loving welcome and traditional hospitality. How can it be possible for a stranger, for a developed world's citizen to spare so much time (almost daily) for an unknown person from a remote developing country-Unbelievable!!! Though there were few friends who avoided responding my queries about travel info, but the majority not only attended me, but also helped me in planning my trips, stays and meetings in different cities and remote conference centers. They were really wonderful people and amazing hosts, in fact they did a lot more than I expected. I truly think this is a wonderful example for all of us. Even if we do not know someone personally but we are still part of the same family. In fact this is a new and sustainable direction to the use of our communication network. Not only those but several other friends and strangers like Veena Gokhale of Ottawa Canada , Prof Gul Agha from USA, Porni Babe of Indonesia, Pravin & Renu Pania of USA, Deepak Apte of Mumbai, Lesley Stephenson of South Africa, Asha Chand of UAE, Mona of Pune, Karamat Ali of Karachi, Sunder Thadani, Nand Javeri, Holaram Hans and Kirat Babani of Bombay, Saghir Sahikh, Shawn Mahmood, Nadeem Jamali from USA. Dr Sasha Roseneil of UK were those who invited me and extended their guidance and cooperation and strengthened my firm belief that we the civil society activists are one big family and this email communication network is a source of pride and strength to all of us, and we should stick by each other. Do you think all of us can make us open to others not only professionally but on personal level? Knowing so many people in different countries, even if you dont know them personally is a big opportunity in every sense. Now I want to reciprocate, if you intend to visit Sindh or you want something from Hyderabad feel free to get in touch with me, and do come and live with my family, I would like to say that if anyone need my help in any way, I would like to do it as much as I can. If anyone of you plan to come to Pakistan, I can help you in organizing your trip in the best possible way. I am sure all of us can do it. Regards Ayaz Latif Palijo Advocate Addr: B-48, Prince Town, Hyderabad, Sindh, Pakistan Phone: 92-221-651947,651725, Mb: 0303-7212836 Pl. send copy of all urgent messages to: fsr5st@yahoo.com, fsr5st@usa.net _________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.