Convention on Biological Diversity and the Cartagena Pro­tocol on Biosafety are arguably legitimate and thus actions taken under these MEAs are WTO-consistent. This is indeed what the European Communities argued in the WTO dis­pute on biotech products; it implied that MEAs such as the Cartagena Protocol are setting international standards and that its regulatory processes are consistent, with both WTO rules and the Protocol (Shaw and Schwartz, 2005).
     The issue of trade and labor standards is highly contro­versial. The WTO Agreements do not deal with any core labor standards. But some industrialized countries believe that the issue should be studied by the WTO as a first step toward bringing the matter of core labor standards within its ambit. WTO rules and disciplines, they argue, would provide a powerful incentive for Member nations to im­prove workplace conditions.
     On the other hand, many developing and some devel­oped countries believe the issue has no place in the WTO framework. These countries argue that efforts to bring labor standards into the arena of multilateral trade negotiations are little more than a smokescreen for protectionism. Many developing countries believe that the campaign to bring la­bor issues into the WTO is actually a bid by industrialized nations to undermine the comparative advantage of lower wage trading partners.
     In   1996,   after  heated  discussions,  WTO   Members identified the ILO as the competent body to deal with la­bor standards. WTO members said they were committed to recognized core labor standards and that these standards should not be used for protectionism. The economic advan­tage of low-wage countries should not be questioned. The WTO and ILO secretariats were asked to continue their existing collaboration. There is currently no work on the subject in the WTO.
     It is apparent then that when dealing with the inter­face of trade and social dimensions such as labor standards, that the WTO is not the appropriate forum. Nonetheless countries must have the adequate policy space to implement labor standards and the ILO Conventions, in order to pro­mote opportunities for women and men to obtain decent and productive work, in conditions of freedom, equity, se­curity and dignity.
     On the other hand, the effort to include socioeconomic considerations in the Biosafety Protocol was strongly re­sisted by developed countries. The result is a general pro­vision in Article 26, as follows: (a) A decision on import under the Protocol or under its domestic measures imple­menting the Protocol, may take into account socioeconomic considerations arising from the impact of LMOs (living modified organisms, the term used for GMOs in the Pro­tocol) on the conservation and sustainable use of biological diversity, especially with regard to the value of biological diversity to indigenous and local communities; and (b) The Parties are encouraged to cooperate on research and infor­mation exchange on any socioeconomic impacts of living modified  organisms,  especially on indigenous  and local communities.
     It would be important for developing countries to con­duct research and studies to contribute to this international process of research and exchange of information among governments, international and NGOs on the socioeco-

nomic aspects of GMOs (Second Conference of the Parties serving as the Meeting of the Parties to the Protocol, 2005). At the national level, decision-making on GMO policy and specific GMOs would also greatly benefit from such studies. Many countries allow for socioeconomic considerations to be taken into account when taking a decision on whether or not to allow the import of a GMO into the country.
     The proliferation of bilateral and regional free trade agreements (FTAs) in ESAP countries may have implica­tions for national policy space, making it more difficult for governments to implement and enforce environmental, so­cial and health protective measures. Of particular concern are the FTAs between developing countries and developed countries like the United States. These North-South FTAs are very comprehensive in scope and extend into the realm of domestic policies (Gibbs and Wagle, 2005).
     The investment chapter of US FTAs, for example, in­cludes provisions on expropriation and mechanisms for investor-state dispute settlement. These have proved to be problematic in the NAFTA (North American FTA, which has been in force for more than 10 years) context, as foreign investors have successfully challenged government activities and public policies, such as those aimed at environmental protection (Gibbs and Wagle, 2005). It is not inconceiv­able that health or social measures may also be affected. Furthermore, FTAs that include compensation provisions for expropriation of investment by direct or indirect means could lead to claims against government regulations aimed at enhancing public welfare or protecting the environment, if they are perceived to affect an investor's profitability.

3.5.4     Pollution havens
Different countries have different environmental standards. These differences could be used in international trade sys­tems to export products meant for disposal, for instance, to countries where environmental standards are particularly lax, so-called pollution havens. There have been instances of ships sent to Bangladesh or India for breaking up, not having the hazardous substances removed and dealt with in the originating country.
     Ship-breaking, to take this example, creates many jobs in Bangladesh, India, etc. This is based on the lower labor costs involved in these developing countries. But the ship-break­ing activities can still be carried out in developing countries with lower labor costs, with prior removal and proper dis­posal of hazardous substances in the originating countries. Obviously this would be more expensive that the export of these substances to "pollution havens". But examples show (e.g., that of the French aircraft carrier Clemenceau, that had to taken back to France for removal of asbestos and other hazardous substances, before being re-sent to India for breaking up) and general economic analysis would bear out, stricter responsibilities for disposal of hazardous sub­stances, which is also likely to be a more capital-intensive activity, can be combined with jobs for labor-intensive ac­tivities, like breaking up ships. Along with action, often ini­tiated by press and civil society organizations, to have more stringent environmental standards in existing "pollution havens", there could also be a role for international coordi­nation of environmental standards to deal with disposal of hazardous substances.