SA Project Team Meeting
17 July 2003, Gland
Summary of Issues
I.
Scope of Note
This note summarizes the discussion that took place during the SA Project Team meeting on July 17th.
It is not a full transcript of the meeting. Its main purpose is to provide a summary of the issues raised
and outline the conclusions and recommendations so that appropriate actions by each Team Member
can be undertaken. The note is structured according to the agreed agenda. See Attachment 1 for ease
of reference.
The main objectives of the meeting were to:
(i) Take stock of where we are, outlining lessons learnt and key constraints;
(ii) Agree on key activities for the July-December period;
(iii) Discuss proposed objectives and activities for follow-up work to the SA Project; and,
(iv) Discuss key messages for Cancun
Participants included Evelin Bermudez, Tom Crompton, Aimee Gonzales, Joe Padilla, Claudia Saladin,
and Keith Tyrell. Gordon Shepherd joined part of the afternoon session. D’Alembert de Barros and
Jorge Fecuri joined the group via conference call for the update on Brazil.
II.
Taking Stock and Activities for the July-December Period
 In the Philippines activities are proceeding well. Substantial progressed achieved on
institutionalization of SAs but the task is far from complete. Institutionalization of any kind of
concept or approach is a process that requires time. The SA project has been key in paving the way
for governments and civil society to recognize SAs as a valuable tool. However, trade (e.g
manufactured commodities and services) still remains a territory of the government and the private
sector. Civil society involvement in trade policy-making and in trade issues in general has been
uneven, mostly depending on sector specific NGO interests (agriculture) or technical knowledge
(aquaculture). Continued support for further work on SAs could be pivotal in building the capacities
of civil society to become more involved in trade issues.
 The multi-stakeholder process has been rather successful in bringing together different groups and in
heightening the awareness on the linkages between trade and the social and environmental
dimensions of sustainable development. The Technical Working Group (TWG) is the main
mechanism used to engage different groups in a dialogue over SAs and trade issues. Also,
methodological issues are discussed.
 Key targets to be accomplished over the next few months are: (i) the publication and launching of
the case study report; (ii) the completion of technical reports on the SA of the TRP for the fisheries
sector; (iii) the development of an exit or, if applicable, a continuation strategy for this project
component; (iv) to continue efforts to institutionalize SAs; and, (v) project development to
contribute to the targets and milestones of Forest TDP and Marine TDP in selected EAPs in
Southeast Asia.
 In Europe, progressed has been achieved in recognizing the value of SAs and in promoting
transparency in the EU process. The EC is conducting numerous SAs including phase 3 of WTO
negotiations, EU-Mercosur bilateral, EU-ACP bilateral. Consultations with civil society are taking
very seriously by EC members and are conducted in a participatory manner. Progressed was also
achieved in building local capacity for stakeholders to undertake, participate, and advocate for the
use of SAs. For instance, the European Trade Network has been fully established and has already
engaged on a number of activities aimed at promoting SAs. Other key activities aimed at
information sharing and advocacy include: participation in seminars and debates on SA of trade
policies and programs; focused and targeted discussions with key civil society members; preparation
of briefs on SA issues; and release of joint NGO statements. In terms of analytical contributions, we
provided timely and well-grounded critiques of the Commission SIAs. These have been done in
cooperation with other NGOs.
 Albeit this progress some challenges remain. For instance, there is no real evidence that SAs are
changing policy even in terms of flanking measures, the studies conducted are very general and they
lack technical rigor, it is difficult to persuade NGOs to engage more, and, there is considerable lack
of interest among other DGs
 Efforts in the EU over the next few months will focus on strengthening the dialogue with DG Trade
and DG Environment, as well as, conducting bilateral discussions with key government supporters
(i.e. France, Brussels). Main goal will be to continue putting pressure on DG Trade as any change
there is likely to influence the perception of other DGs.
 In the US, progress on institutionalization of SAs has been partial. The primary reason is the lack of
support within the current administration to openly engage in a dialogue on trade issues. For
example, the public consultation process has been limited to soliciting feedback from stakeholders
through the advisory committees. Unfortunately, this mechanism has been ineffective in engaging
the broader network of NGOs and its mandate does not extend to pushing for change in policymaking. Similarly, the government rhetoric is such that there is little room for maneuver and
influence.
 Some team members argued that the question lies on whether or not environmental reviews (SAs)
are the right tool to influence policy in the U.S. It appears that there exist serious limitations in
terms of what we can do and therefore, future efforts should focus on providing support to
developing countries to advocate for change in the trade negotiating process within the U.S and to
conduct their own environmental reviews. This approach is likely to be more effective as it will
take into account the specific needs of countries and will put pressure on the US government to
listen and address the concerns of their negotiating partners.
 Achievement was reached in influencing the way the US conducts ERs (FTAA, CAFTA, bilaterals,
WTO) by providing comments and monitoring the ER process. This was done in collaboration with
partner NGOs in developing countries. Also a handbook on how to work with SAs has been
completed. Over the next few months, efforts will focus on: securing support for a legislation that
would provide funding to countries to conduct their own environmental reviews; working with
WWF-Brazil to launch the soy case study; maintaining dialogue with key partners on the ER
process; monitoring the CEC assessment work; and ensuring proper closure of activities in the US in
the context of the SA Project.
 The possibility of further collaboration with WWF-US remains open provided that appropriate
funding can be secured. Still, the team agreed that any work should focus on providing support to
developing countries to influence trade policy-making. The modalities of a possible collaboration
remain to be determined.
III.
Moving Forward
 The discussion was led by Tom who presented some ideas regarding further work on SAs and its
overall linkage to WWF’s work on trade. Each regional coordinator (Claudia, Jo, Keith) also
presented their perspective on what should be the focus of a Phase II of the project.
 Tom highlighted the need to move away from viewing SAs as a containment tool. He argued that it
is important to view sustainable development as the ultimate goal and economic development and
trade as tools to help us achieve it. In this context, SAs can be used to question these values and
expectations.
 There was clear consensus that any follow up work should build on what was already achieved in
Europe, Philippines and Latin America. Clear linkages should be made to poverty reduction issues
and, where possible, the discussions on sustainability assessments should be linked to the PRSP
process.
 It was also argued that the focus should be on developing countries. Specifically, support should be
provided to civil society to influence trade policy and to conduct SAs. Each region will need a
different emphasis but essentially the goal will be to support locally based initiatives aimed at
making trade policies more sustainable, transparent, inclusive and accountable.
 In the case of the EU the focus will be slightly different compared to Latin America and the
Philippines. For example, SAs are leading to recommendations on what flanking measures should
be used. However, it is still unclear how SAs are contributing to changing policy practices or
whether they help policy and decision-makers know what to expect of trade liberalization.
Similarly, civil society has been quite active in trying to influence the processes but it yet remains
difficult to maintain a constant level of engagement on their part. To this end, advocacy at the DG
and parliamentarian level, as well as, continued support for civil society will be key.
 The specific objectives and activities in each region will be developed by the coordinators, taking
into account lessons learnt and key political, institutional and social constraints. Essentially, they
will include a mix of research, lobbying, campaigning and capacity-building.
 A consolidated proposal will be prepared by the SA Project Manager and will serve as the basis for
discussions with donors. Ideally, face-to-face discussions could take place in Cancun. However,
communications with donors on the follow up work should be established beforehand.
IV.
Partnerships

In planning the next steps, each regional coordinator will pay careful attention to the kinds of
partnerships, formal or informal, that can be built. Partnerships such as the one developed with
UNEP are important and have much value-added. However, it is key to clarify roles and
responsibilities of a joint collaboration. In this regard, any further work with UNEP during Phase
II of the project should clearly delineate the modalities of cooperation. Potential areas of further
work include capacity building activities in the Southeast Asia region and conducting case studies
in two-three countries. The specificity of WWF’s involvement is being discussed with colleagues
in UNEP.

Other partnerships such as those with the World Bank will be explored in close consultation with
the Macroeconomics for Sustainable Development Program Office in the US.

Each regional coordinator should suggest the kinds of partnerships worth pursuing in
implementing the activities during Phase II.
V.
WTO Ministerial Meeting in Cancun

WWF’s overarching position in Cancun evolves from the messages presented during WSSD. The
position note being developed makes a call to governments to: assert sustainable development and
put it at the heart of international decision-making; develop innovative solutions to the challenge of
achieving sustainable development; and, to recognize that there are specific areas of policy that
should not be addressed through the WTO machinery such as new initiatives on indicators other
than GDP, on investment, or on governance.

A number of key documents are being developed and will be distributed to others for comments.

In terms of SAs, the overarching goal should be that of advocacy and awareness-raising. Groups
to be targeted include donors, ministers, and key civil society groups. The main objective is to
create a forum for dialogue and exchange so that those governments who are still hesitant will be
encouraged to use the tool and those who have conducted SAs will be motivated to share their
findings and be candid about the results. To achieve this, WWF delegates will engage in a number
of structured discussions (panel sessions) and more informal meetings with key stakeholders.

Each WWF member of the delegation should make specific recommendations on their respective
area of focus and group target. This will guarantee more effective and efficient participation
during the ministerial meetings.
Conference Call with Brazil

Finalization of the soy case study is well underway. The team in Brazil (D’Alembert and Jorge)
are now focusing on developing a communications and media strategy, a workshop plan and
advocacy plans. The Action Matrix, prepared by the SA Project Manager, provides deadlines for
completion of these tasks.

Two initial technical meetings where the report will be released are scheduled for August 17 and
20 in Paraguay and Malaysia respectively.

A press conference will be held before the WTO meetings in Cancun. WWF Brazil to organize it
in consultation with WWF-US (Priscilla) and other colleagues as appropriate. The key objective
will be to highlight key analytical issues and present the recommendations.

Full and summary documents will be posted on the internet sites of WWF-Brazil, WWF-Int’l,
WWF-US and SA project. Priscilla to liaise with Jorge on this.

Feedback will be provided on the summary document by SA project team members. Priscilla to
focus on the Portuguese version and the others on the English version.

In terms of Cancun, the Brazil case study will be featured during the EU event on SA either in a
panel discussion or as part of a side event where different agencies will have a booth with
information on their activities and where participants will have an opportunity to ask questions.
The Brazil office will be responsible for coordinating materials to be distributed.

The group agreed that it was important to work in collaboration with FCI. However, outputs and
activities should be clearly differentiated from the broader work in the soy sector in order to ensure
that the lessons and recommendations emerging from the work on sustainability assessments are
properly disseminated.
Conclusions and Recommendations

The team did not have time to summarize what had transpired during the day. However, the
summary of key issues and the Actions Matrix provide sufficient background for Team Members
to follow-up accordingly.
Attachment 1
SA Project: Team Meeting
July 17th, 9:00-17:30
Tiddler Room, WWF Int’l
Agenda
9:00-9:15
Introductions and Meeting Objectives
The main objectives of the meeting are to:
(i) take stock of where we are;
(ii) agree on key activities for the July-December period; and,
(iii) discuss proposed objectives and activities for follow-up work to the SA Project.
The main outputs will include:
(i) a detailed work-plan for activities to be implemented between July and December 2003 in Europe, LAC,
US, and the Philippines;
(ii) a set of recommendations outlining overall objectives for follow-up work, including a tentative list of
activities that could be undertaken to meet theses objectives;
(iii) a set of recommendations for WWF’s role in Cancun, including key messages on our current and future
plans for SA work
9:15-10:30
Taking Stock and Planning the July-December Period



Activities in Europe (Keith)
Activities in the US
(Claudia)
Activities in the Philippines (Joe)
This session will: (i) review progress between the January-June period; (ii) outline lessons learnt since the last
team meeting (Feb 2002); (iii) identify key constraints in achieving project objectives, describing actions taken
to address these constraints; and, (iv) outline specific activities to be undertaken in the July-December period.
Each presenter will have 15 min. We will allocate 30 minutes for open discussion at which time we should also
address any gaps on international level advocacy and how they can be addressed in the coming months.
Presentations on progress achieved and lessons learnt should provide as thorough an analysis as possible in order
to assess the effectiveness and impact of the project thusfar. This should assess the linkages between progress
made on activities undertaken and overall project objectives. It should also differentiate between outputs and
overall outcome/impacts. Similarly, the discussion on constraints should focus both on process issues as well as
on technical aspects. It should also be forward looking and attempt to identify possible challenges or constraints
in implementing the activities planned for the July-December period.
The list below provides a framework for the kinds of activities that are supposed to be carried between JulyDecember. The Team should reach agreement on these activities and revise or add as deemed appropriate.
Note: It is important to be realistic and commit to feasible and clear deliverables.
Key Activities for 2003 (as previously agreed by the Team and being revisited now)
 Disseminating to national and international audiences the Philippines' case study on the live reef-fish sector,
together with proposals for SA institutionalisation by the TWG and strong networking amongst national
groups in the newly established national SA forum.
 Organising of a high-level meeting in Brasilia to present the case study on trade-driven soy agriculture in
Brazil, followed by targeted advocacy and capacity building activities with key influential actors.
 Undertaking the third case study on tourism trade and its liberalisation in Turkey.
 Conducting international level advocacy during the 5th WTO Ministerial meeting in Cancun, and focused
national-level advocacy in the US and EU.
 Building a strong and active European NGO network fighting for real integration of SA in the EU trade
decision-making process.
 Consolidating a well-organised network of interested groups in Latin America working on SA in the FTAA
context.
 Organising the second project team meeting planned for summer 2003 to review achievements and next
steps after the project.
 Organising a donors' meeting to discuss how the expertise and capacity built during the SA project can best
inform and be used for the continuation of WWF's trade and investment work.
10:30-12:00
Recommendations for Follow up Work
Presentations by:




Europe (Keith)
US (Claudia)
Philippines (Joe)
LAC (MOTT Proposal? Who will be the focal point in the region for further SA work?
Each presenter will provide recommendations for further work in their region. After lunch, these will be
discussed and a decision will need to be reached on what kind of follow up, if any, should be undertaken.
12:00 –13:30
Lunch
Pizzeria Da Paolo
Aside from enjoying lunch, it would be a good idea to review what took place during the morning session and
discuss any amendments to the agenda.
13:30-15:00
Moving Forward: The Future of SAs
Chair: Tom
The discussion will be led by Tom who will present some ideas regarding further work on SAs and how this will
fit into WWF’s overall work on trade. The group will also discuss the suggestions presented during the morning
and will attempt to reach agreement on overall objectives and potential activities that could be undertaken during
a Phase II of the project. Process, technical and resource challenges will be outlined with an aim to provide a
full picture of the feasibility of engaging in further work on SA.
Should the group reach consensus on follow up work, then a rough action and timetable plan for the SeptemberDecember period will be drawn in order to begin discussions with donors and other partners. Assignment of
responsibilities will be distributed among team members.
15:00-15:30
Building Formal Alliances and Collaboration with Other Agencies
This would be more or less a continuation of the previous session where the team will discuss in greater detail
the types of collaboration that could be forged. For instance, collaboration with UNEP has been continuous and
we are now about to engage in new activities in the Philippines and in the Southeast Asia region. In pursuing
further follow up SA work, should we consider broadening the partnership with UNEP and engage in
collaborative efforts in Latin America? What about other agencies like IUCN and the World Bank? Should we
build stronger alliances with these agencies? How and at what level (another MOU)? How can we enhance
cooperation with CSD? What are the institutional implications of broadening our network of formal partnerships
in carrying out further work on SAs?
15:30-16:30
Preparations for Cancun
Chair: Gordon
The session will answer:
(i)
(ii)
(iv)
what is WWF’s overarching objective in Cancun?
what are our key messages regarding current work on SA and trade?
what is our story-line regarding future WWF work on SA?
Also, we will discuss WWF’s participation during the EU session on SAs. Keith to brief group.
16:30-17:00
Conference Call with Brazil
D’Alembert and Jorge Fecuri
D’Alembert will provide an update on where they are with the finalization of the Soy Case Study. This update
will include a clear delineation of outputs and the timetable for delivery and implementation. Jorge Fecuri will
outline the dissemination and communication strategy and will provide a timetable for its implementation. We
have agreed that in preparing the dissemination and communication strategy Jorge will consult with WWF-US
(Priscilla) and WWF Int’l (Evelin, Dieter, others?).
17:00-17:30
Conclusions and Next Steps




Summarize agreed points
Review assignment of responsibilities for Cancun
Outline timetable for completing key activities during the July-December period
Next Team Meeting
***