IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/wti/papers/214.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

The Environmental Area Initiative (EAI) Approach to the WTO Negotiations and Environmental Goods and Services: Linking Trade Policy and Climate Change

Author

Listed:
  • Baracol-Pinhão, Donah

Abstract

Recognition of the potential of the multilateral negotiations on environmental goods and services (EGS) to contribute directly to climate change mitigation objectives has grown markedly among the WTO membership. This is evident in the major shift of focus in the recent submissions and proposals, from goods and services relevant to environmental protection, rehabilitation and sutainability, to those pertinent to climate change, including a proposal to link the negotiations with  the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM). The Doha Round has stalled but continuing submissions reflect an optimism and interest by Members to reach an agreement in an area that has grown even more in importance since the negotiations were launched in 2001. The observed trend in the proposals further reflects an urgency among the membership to address the enormous challenges of climate change, and lends support to growing global acknowledgment of the link between climate change and trade and the call to direct the negotiating focus on climate-friendly goods and technologies.  Discussion on climate-friendly goods will inevitably need to confront the issue of non-tariff barriers (NTBs) in general, and standards and labelling, in particular. While the negotiating mandate on EGS is aimed at the reduction or, as appropriate, the elimination of tariff and non-tariff barriers, and even as the importance of NTBs is widely recognized, there is a lack of  proposals. This deficiency has rendered the negotiating exercise lopsided. The negotiations have focused on  tariffs and on environmental services while the mandate to negotiate on NTBs has largely been ignored. This situation, however, is expected to change. In March 2010, proposals on the subject have been received from Brazil and Japan.  The Environmental Area Initiative (EAI) approach to negotiating EGS in the WTO, proposed by Cottier and myself (UNCTAD 2009; WTI 2009), may be an alternative and more viable approach to linking trade negotiations and climate change mitigation policies. It is not limited to negotiating tariffs and services commitments but addresses the complexity of issues by organising negotiations on the basis of specific targets and goals, and can be viewed as a consolidating approach by bringing together all WTO issues pertinent to the environmental goal identified (in this case, climate change mitigation). The approach, moreover, gets around the limitations and legal incompatibility of negotiating approaches proposed by the WTO membership until 2008. The negotiating outcome of the EAI approach will be the drafting of an EGS framework agreement that translates the mandates of the Doha Declaration into specific obligations, and addresses linkages with other WTO areas of relevance to EGS. Previous publications by Cottier and myself have outline the  operationalization of EAI, but fall short of expanding on the non-tariff-related mandate and related issues. In this paper, the EAI approach is developed further to now include NTBs, focusing on standards. By exploring the case of organic products, which belongs to the category of environmentally-preferable products (EPPs) and the sector where standards and labelling  are most  prevalent, the paper aims to draw insights for dealing with standards and voluntary labelling in the EGS negotiations. The significance of standards and labelling in the context of climate change requires a broad discussion and clarification of WTO rules applicable to standards. This paper presents issues that need to be dealt with in the discussion that is expected to be generated by the recent WTO proposals, and recommend steps that Members could take to address them. A shorter section of this paper will cover technology transfer, and how the EGS negotiations can assist in putting into concrete terms Kyoto Protocol commitments through complementary measures and commitments in relevant WTO policy and regulatory areas. Possible modalities for negotiating EPPs will be outlined in the section that covers the recommendations on provisions that should be considered in the drafting of an eventual EGS framework agreement.

Suggested Citation

  • Baracol-Pinhão, Donah, 2011. "The Environmental Area Initiative (EAI) Approach to the WTO Negotiations and Environmental Goods and Services: Linking Trade Policy and Climate Change," Papers 214, World Trade Institute.
  • Handle: RePEc:wti:papers:214
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.wti.org/media/filer_public/d0/78/d07888ba-8d46-43a1-a1d7-03122ad22abb/aei_approch_-_donah_baracol-pinhao_01.pdf
    File Function: First version
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Dechezlepretre, Antoine & Glachant, Matthieu & Hascic, Ivan & Johnstone, Nick & Meniere, Yann, 2009. "Invention and Transfer of Climate Change Mitigation Technologies on a Global Scale: A Study Drawing on Patent Data," Sustainable Development Papers 54361, Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei (FEEM).
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Hu, Hui & Qi, Shaozhou & Chen, Yuanzhi, 2023. "Using green technology for a better tomorrow: How enterprises and government utilize the carbon trading system and incentive policies," China Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 78(C).
    2. Arnaud de La Tour & Matthieu Glachant & Yann Ménière, 2013. "What cost for photovoltaic modules in 2020? Lessons from experience curve models," Working Papers hal-00805668, HAL.
    3. Sandrine Mathy & Patrick Criqui & Katharina Knoop & Manfred Fischedick & Sascha Samadi, 2016. "Uncertainty management and the dynamic adjustment of deep decarbonization pathways," Climate Policy, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 16(sup1), pages 47-62, June.
    4. Durán-Romero, Gemma & López, Ana M. & Beliaeva, Tatiana & Ferasso, Marcos & Garonne, Christophe & Jones, Paul, 2020. "Bridging the gap between circular economy and climate change mitigation policies through eco-innovations and Quintuple Helix Model," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 160(C).
    5. Hötte, Kerstin & Pichler, Anton & Lafond, François, 2021. "The rise of science in low-carbon energy technologies," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 139(C).
    6. Hayashi, Daisuke & Huenteler, Joern & Lewis, Joanna I., 2018. "Gone with the wind: A learning curve analysis of China's wind power industry," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 120(C), pages 38-51.
    7. Parrado, Ramiro & De Cian, Enrica, 2014. "Technology spillovers embodied in international trade: Intertemporal, regional and sectoral effects in a global CGE framework," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 41(C), pages 76-89.
    8. Jingbo Cui & Zhenxuan Wang & Haishan Yu, 2022. "Can International Climate Cooperation Induce Knowledge Spillover to Developing Countries? Evidence from CDM," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 82(4), pages 923-951, August.
    9. Seres, Stephen & Haites, Erik & Murphy, Kevin, 2009. "Analysis of technology transfer in CDM projects: An update," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(11), pages 4919-4926, November.
    10. Zhongju Liao & Xiang Zhu, 2022. "A configurational analysis of firms' environmental innovation: Evidence from China's key pollutant‐discharge listed companies," Sustainable Development, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 30(6), pages 1511-1522, December.
    11. Szolgayová, Jana & Golub, Alexander & Fuss, Sabine, 2014. "Innovation and risk-averse firms: Options on carbon allowances as a hedging tool," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 70(C), pages 227-235.
    12. Massimiliano Mazzanti & Ugo Rizzo, 2014. "Moving'diversely'towards'the'green'economy.'CO2'abating'techno organisational'trajectories'and'environmental'policy'in'EU'sectors," SEEDS Working Papers 0914, SEEDS, Sustainability Environmental Economics and Dynamics Studies, revised May 2014.
    13. Barbieri, Nicolò, 2015. "Investigating the impacts of technological position and European environmental regulation on green automotive patent activity," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 117(C), pages 140-152.
    14. van den Bijgaart, Inge, 2017. "The unilateral implementation of a sustainable growth path with directed technical change," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 91(C), pages 305-327.
    15. Alejandro Padilla-Rivera & Ben Amor & Pierre Blanchet, 2018. "Evaluating the Link between Low Carbon Reductions Strategies and Its Performance in the Context of Climate Change: A Carbon Footprint of a Wood-Frame Residential Building in Quebec, Canada," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(8), pages 1-20, August.
    16. Benedict Probst & Simon Touboul & Matthieu Glachant & Antoine Dechezleprêtre, 2021. "Global trends in the invention and diffusion of climate change mitigation technologies," Nature Energy, Nature, vol. 6(11), pages 1077-1086, November.
    17. Solmaria Halleck Vega & Antoine Mandel, 2017. "A network-based approach to technology transfers in the context of climate policy," Documents de travail du Centre d'Economie de la Sorbonne 17009, Université Panthéon-Sorbonne (Paris 1), Centre d'Economie de la Sorbonne.
    18. Cui, Jingbo & Liu, Xi & Sun, Yongping & Yu, Haishan, 2020. "Can CDM projects trigger host countries’ innovation in renewable energy? Evidence of firm-level dataset from China," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 139(C).
    19. MILE 09, Maria Anna Corvaglia, 2013. "South-South Technology Transfer Addressing Climate Change: The Emerging Role of Developing Countries in the Global Climate Governance," Papers 474, World Trade Institute.
    20. Hall, Bronwyn & Helmers, Christian, 2010. "The role of patent protection in (clean/green) technology transfer," MERIT Working Papers 2010-046, United Nations University - Maastricht Economic and Social Research Institute on Innovation and Technology (MERIT).

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:wti:papers:214. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Morven McLean (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/wtibech.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.