Environmental Engineering Reference
In-Depth Information
Negotiators from the USA, the EC and Australia have acknowledged that services 'con-
tracted by' public utilities could well be covered by GATS. In a joint statement, they
openly ask how a market access commitment would apply to the range of contracting
formats (Australia et al., 2005). The formats include (1) concessions to operate a utility,
(2) 'public-private partnerships' to operate certain facilities, and (3) contracts to support
speci
c functions such as maintenance within a utility. In each of these formats, the
private contractor is a single supplier.
The EC request resolved this con
fi
ict by explicitly not asking for market access com-
mitments for government purchasing. The EC asked only for national treatment commit-
ments. The US schedule retained a market access commitment based on an interpretation
that services purchased by public utilities are not covered by GATS. If US negotiators were
wrong and the EC was right, then a public-private contract that triggers coverage under
the US commitment would violate market access rules. That is because it sets up a single
service supplier. Perhaps the reason that US negotiators do not want to adopt the EC's
clari
fl
cation is that doing so would signal similar issues with parts of the US schedule
outside of Environmental Services. Energy distribution and health facilities come to mind.
The GATS issues in wastewater also arise in solid and hazardous waste, but the envi-
ronmental impact of GATS could be greater on solid waste.
fi
Solid waste
Like the water industry, the waste industry is capital intensive and dominated by multi-
national
rms (WTO, 1998). The 'win' scenario for solid waste promises greater access to
the cleanest technology to burn, contain or recycle waste; reduced costs; and the ability
to co-generate heat or power for industries and communities (OECD, 2000; International
Trade Commission, 2004).
The controversy in this sector is about burning, as illustrated by the case of Ebara, a
Japanese
fi
rm. Ebara promoted a state-of-the-art incinerator in Malaysia as environmen-
tally friendly. But the environmental critique was sti
fi
: opponents charged that the facil-
ity would destroy tropical rainforest, harm a water catchment area for two million people,
and emit four persistent organic pollutants (POPs) that Japan has promised to eliminate
under the Stockholm Convention on POPs (International POPs, 2005). Environmental
advocates are critical of perverse incentives in this industry; massive investment in incin-
erators generates demand for waste to incinerate, and operators become less likely to
pursue recycling or ways to avoid waste (Reichert, 2006).
The challenge of waste management is to get the optimal mix of technologies and con-
servation systems to meet unique local needs. A country might seek balance by licensing
some incinerators while limiting their total number. But such a limit on the number of
suppliers or operations would violate a country's commitment under GATS market access
rules. Once the door is opened to private operators or contractors, then any attempt to
limit the number of incinerators or operators could be challenged.
In the USA, there are approximately 140 commercially operated waste incinerators, 22
of which burn hazardous waste (EPA, 1996; 1999). The US commitment on solid waste
covers the services 'contracted by private industry' within the list quoted above, for
example, maintenance and monitoring.
Similar concerns have been raised in other sectors such as services incidental to mining,
oil extraction, pipeline transportation or distribution of natural resources. GATS will
ff
