1. business and industrial
2. agriculture and forestry
3. agriculture

WTO Seminar
Annie Haakenstad, Daniel Stumpf
Reanimating the Doha Round: How to make progress in negotiations
about environmental goods and services?
Introduction
Environmental Goods and Services, (EGS) in a general sense, embody a certain hope for
the future of the Biosphere and the global economy. Such technologies, goods and
services are capable, according to some, of mitigating and even ameliorating our effect
on the environment, while also giving rise to economic growth and perhaps, alleviating
poverty. This ambitious and simultaneous betterment of society, the environment and the
economy is the goal of “sustainable development,” defined by the oft-quoted 1987
Brundtland Report, as to meet “the needs of the present generation without compromising
the ability of future generations to meet their own needs."
The World Trade Organization’s (WTO) Preamble proclaims that the organization is
committed to sustainable development. Furthermore, paragraph 31(iii) of the Doha
Declaration spells out liberalizing in EGS as part of the single undertaking of the Doha
Development Agenda (DDA) (UNEP, 2005). The goods and services that work towards
mitigation and those that are produced, used and disposed of “sustainably” could
potentially be included in this realm of EGS trade. Unfortunately, roadblocks to coming
to an agreement on EGS remain in place, including a lack of consensus on how to define
these goods and services and how to lower barriers to trade.
Although Doha negotiations were held up in July 2008 and the financial crisis has left a
$25 billion gap in trade financing, there is no reason to hold up the pursuit of degradation
mitigating technologies and their spread. In fact these are but opportunities disguised as
challenges. Many suggestions for jumpstarting the economy include funneling massive
amounts of funding into renewable energies and other types of environmentally friendly
technologies. Although people are less likely to accept environmental regulations that
may limit growth during the times of economic downfall, surges in economic activity that
work toward a better environment will not likely be turned away. Lowering barriers to
trade could potentially stimulate a shift to more sustainable production and lowered
consumption-related pollution.
This leads us in turn to question the global balance sheet of environment degradation:
Will such activity reduce our impact on the Earth in absolute terms? Answering this
question is beyond the scope of this paper, but in any case, an agreement on
Environmental Goods and Services would certainly send the message that the
international community is ready to take our environmental impact seriously.
Why is an agreement stalled?
EGS negotiations pose a wide realm of challenges on linkages, modalities and at the most
basic level, defining the basket of goods and services member states are willing to
liberalize. The mandate for negotiating on EGS, stemming from Paragraph 31 (iii) of the
Doha mandate simply proclaims a desire for “the reduction or, as appropriate, elimination
WTO Seminar
Annie Haakenstad, Daniel Stumpf
of tariff and non-tariff barriers to environmental goods and services.” Evidently, this is
not specific in terms of timelines, reduction measures, which goods to liberalize and how
to liberalize. These blurry and undefined negotiating terms make it more difficult to
come to an agreement, increasing the arduous and time-consuming challenges presented
by negotiations.
Defining these goods and services is quite problematic, because the breadth of goods
included could be quite wide or quite limited. Member states struggle in considering
whether these goods should include those intended to protect the environment or those
produced in a comparably more environmentally friendly way (Environmentally
Preferable Products). There is also the question of ‘dual use,’ i.e. goods that can be used
to protect the environment, but that can also be used in other ways (for example, pipes).
As usual in the multilateral trading system, most important is the question of losers and
winners in coming to an agreement on EGS. If we use a definition of EGS that only
includes goods and services intended to protect the environment, the prevailing
perception is that agreements in this realm will benefit the industrial countries more than
developing countries. LDCs certainly have an interest in “ground zero” environmental
issues, i.e. water, air pollution and soil fertility, however, it seems that need for these
goods outweighs their capacity to import and/or produce. Perhaps most importantly, lack
of meaningful progress in Non-Agriculture Market Access (NAMA) and Agriculture
negotiations also prevents developing countries from wanting to open up in EGS. It has
been said that EGS is one “bargaining chip” developing countries want to leverage in
trying to negotiate successfully in Doha, intentionally keeping tariffs high in these goods
(Jha, 2008). While a seemingly good idea in principle, uncertainties related to the
outcome of any agreement in EGS play a significant role in barring progress. The aim of
this paper will be to examine whether the perceptions outlined hold true and what
economic and environmental benefits could result from an agreement in EGS.
Defining Environmental Goods and Services
The WTO is the only international organization at the moment with a mandate to
negotiate on Environmental Goods and Services. The act of defining and liberalizing
these goods could potentially create a predictable, binding market that would expand
production and encourage innovation. Defining what goods and services embody the
mandate to liberalize has been less than straightforward for negotiations in the
multilateral trading system and have been the main focus since the beginning of the Doha
Round in 2001. Before members can even address negotiations on lowering tariffs and
other trade obstacles, there has to be clarity on which products and services an agreement
would cover. Conceptual confusion and indecisiveness rile the current debate, and
certainly, different group of member states adhere to different proposals that would lead
to potential gains.
.
A “traditional” definition of EGS corresponds to products and services that work to
remedy or prevent environmental problems. It is clear of course that such a definition is
by far not precise enough to provide a legal framework for international trade. An
WTO Seminar
Annie Haakenstad, Daniel Stumpf
WTO Seminar
Annie Haakenstad, Daniel Stumpf
agreement on liberalisation in environmental goods and services has to be very specific
on what products are concerned by the rules in order to make trade transparent and
predictable for companies, individuals and governments.
(WTO 2002).What arises from the definition of established environmental technologies is
that they usually do not have inherently environmental characteristics; it is their use to
provide environmental services that qualifies them as environmental goods.
Environmental services could be further expanded to include: 1) those provided by
ecosystems which have the potential to generate human welfare 2) activities carried out
in order to regulate or control the impact of human actions over the ecosystems.
Ecosystem services could include Carbon Sequestration and Forestry Management,
Watershed management, and Biodiversity conservation which could be bundled.
However, developing a market for these services is complex as it may involve detailed
international negotiations, scientific reviews and national legislative action (Reinoso,
2006).
This leads to another problem: these goods are often products that can be used in other
ways besides their environmentally positive manner. Literature refers to this difficulty as
the problem of dual use goods. For example, pumps for sewage and wastewater
treatment can also be used for transporting oil or gas in which case the pump would cease
to be an environmental good. It is often impossible for customs officials to know whether
an imported pump is designed to serve in a purification plant as declared by the importing
company or whether such indications are just a trick to circumvent duty.
The alternative to such a general definitions is to list out all products covered by the
agreement. The more specific these lists are, the less interpretation is left to economic
agents and the more predictable markets become. The “Friends of Environmental Goods”
have proposed this list, comprising Canada, the European Union, Japan, Korea, New
Zealand, Norway, Chinese Taipei, Switzerland and the United States. The approach
essentially consists of identifying and submitting lists of what members regard as
environmental goods of interest in order to accelerate liberalisation and reduce or
eliminate bound tariffs.
Such a list-based approach was the starting point for the negotiations under the mandate
based on paragraph 31. These lists elaborated by the Organization for Economic
Cooperation and Development (OECD) and the Asian-Pacific Economic Cooperation
(APEC), among others, reflect a more or less large consensus of governments on what
products should be considered being an environmental good. The APEC-list has a
somewhat narrower conception of EGS that the OECD-list.
A list of 153 products, which included categories such as renewable energy products,
solid waste management, and heat and energy management products was suggested. In
November 2007, the United States and EU proposed accelerated liberalisation of goods
and services relevant to climate change mitigation, including zero tariffs by 2013 for 43
products that were identified by the World Bank among the 153 first identified. Despite
the fact that the United States is a net importer of these 43 goods and that developing
countries such as China, Mexico, Malaysia, Chinese Taipei and Indonesia were the net
exporters and key winners from such an agreement. Issues like the exclusion of ethanol, a
key issue for Brazil, and the less than clear gains in terms of technology transfer, made
many developing countries question the true “development dimension” of the proposed
list.
The APEC list includes the term established environmental technologies (Howse & van
Bork 2006). This refers to whether the good in question plays some role in the control,
abatement or remediation of pollution. Such a technology addresses pollution or waste
affecting water, air or soil. The OECD-list enlarges the concept of EGS by including a
category for goods that are inputs into sustainable agriculture, forestry and fisheries
To address this problem, propositions have been made to adopt a duty drawback system
(Howse and Van Bork, 2006). Instead of being required to provide a preferential tariff
rate at the border, Members could charge the existing bound rate at customs, but the
producer of the environmentally preferable product would be entitled to request a rebate
of the duty paid at the border based on credible certification that the products exported
were used in order to address environmental problems. Duty drawback also applies in the
case of products that are claimed to be produced in an environmentally sound manner.
Critics maintain however, that the administrative burden imposed by such as process as
well as the possibility of corruption and diversion of products meant for environmental
end-used to other uses may temper the efficacy of such a measure.
Another prospective definition that goes beyond the traditionally defined environmental
goods in the APEC and OECD lists would include Environmentally Preferable Products
(EPP). These are products which cause significantly less ‘environmental harm’ at some
stage of their life cycle than alternative products that serve the same purpose, or products
the production and sale of which contribute significantly to the preservation of the
environment.
This definition requires a type of comparison of EPPs to similar products and services:
any good that is environmentally superior to a similar product in terms of production,
consumption or disposal, or any service that is environmentally superior to a similar
service in terms of its delivery is called environmentally preferable (ICTSD, 2007:xiv).
EPPs can furthermore be broken down into those EPPs which generate environmental
benefits during the production process and those that do so during their use or disposal
stage (Howse & van Bork, 2006: viii). Defining these products pose many different
problems, for example, these products are superior in these terms now, but in the future,
cleaner products may be developed and thus, shall they be automatically included? Once
the formerly superior products face no tarrifs, they cannot be raised to benefit newer and
cleaner products. Some experts, including Mytelka (2007), argue that only truly “clean”
technologies should benefit from EGS liberalisation—as opposed to “relatively cleaner”
ones.
Furthermore, EPPs which are based on process and production methods“ (PPM) are very
controversial. The problem is that many products go through a number of stages and
therefore a number of PPMs are applied before reaching the market. As concluded from
WTO Seminar
Annie Haakenstad, Daniel Stumpf
the notorious Shrimp-Turtle case, countries can discriminate based on PPMs for
environmental reasons if they fulfill Article XX exemptions, i.e. given they are nondiscriminatory, based on shown necessity and are allocated in a manner that trading
partners have the time to adapt. However, WTO rules do not currently permit members
to differentiate among ‘like products’ based solely on differences in the way they are
produced. This is not insurmountable because members could negotiate an exception to
like-products treatment for PPM-based EPPs, while clearly limiting product
differentiation to production-based environmental qualities.
Furthermore, classifying these goods in the HS systems is problematic as well because
the standards and labeling would have to harmonized, posing the challenge of where
these standards and labels come from and certainly, who they benefit. Furthermore,
according to Agenda 21 of the Rio Summit (?) a worldwide mandated harmonized system
of certification is against the tenats of this agenda and goes against principles of
“differentiated responsibility.” A suggestion has been made, that “ex-outs” of certain
agreed-upon goods in the HS would be a good way to get around these systemized
problems. In any case, PPM has been rejected by developing countries, who are
concerned about introducing process and production method criteria to the WTO. Many
fear that PPM-based criteria could become a perverse tool in the broader WTO context
and be used to undermine the market access or competitiveness of weaker Members.
A plethora of modalities for coming to agreement on EGS have been proposed. The most
discussed alternative is the so-called environmental project list approach first suggested
by India (and is supported by the World Bank). The idea is to temporarily liberalize trade
of goods destined for designated projects like those that profit from the Clean
Development Mechanism, if approved by a “Designated National Authority”. Tariffs and
non-tariffs barriers on selected products and services would be reduced or even
eliminated for the duration of specific environmental projects. Each country could select
such projects based upon criteria agreed by the special session of the Committee on Trade
and Environment (CTE). If China for example decides to install a new sewage system in
one of its cities, then Chinese authorities could reduce tariffs on all the goods and
services needed to build and maintain such an installation for the duration of the project.
One offshoot of this project list is the Integrated Approach as proposed by Argentina
which resembles the project approach but with further identification of goods used in the
various approved projects. Both approaches were driven by concerns of ensuring
“environmental end-use” of products that are mainly dual-use.
EGS: Current Trade and Potential Gains from Liberalisation
Economic Issues
Depending on the definition used, the total market size for EGS is estimated at US$ 350
to US$ 550 billion with 20.1% of EG originating in developing countries. However
developing countries remain net importers, importing 31.7 percent of all EGS, amounting
to $47 billion deficit in Established Environmental Technologies (EET). A $4 billion
WTO Seminar
Annie Haakenstad, Daniel Stumpf
surplus in environmentally preferable products (EPP) is encouraging, although it seems to
be constituted mainly by Asia and Oceana’s 2003 surplus in EPP, amounting $4.9 billion
(ICTSD, 2007: xvi).While developing countries currently make up a small portion of the
global EG market, their production is expected to grow at a faster pace than in industrial
countries (Yu, 2007).
Surveys on developing country engagement in world trade in EG show strong
potentialities for export and import, although mostly in middle income countries like
China and Hong Kong. This shows that a certain level of development is required to be
competitive in EGS-trade. Among the top ten importers of Environmental Goods, five
are developing countries, accounting for roughly 35% of the total imports of this group.
The top ten exporters of EGs account for roughly 28% of the total exports of this group.
China and Hong Kong account for over half of the developing countries exports and
imports (Jhan, 2007).
Markets in Environmental services are highly developed and account for 75% of the
world 600 billion environmental industry (mostly water and wasterwater
treatment/management and solid waste management). Asian countries make up 6% or
37.5 billion of this market, and Latin America makes up less than 2.5%, wanting to open
up dev country markets natural consequence, dev pays net importers of services,
equipment and technology, but in asia (Republic of Korea, Chinese Taipei and China
(eGs), with env standardsals andinternational isaiton of the industry via FDI made ES
exporter
In a general sense, liberalizing trade in Environmental Goods and Services could have
some broad effects on the world economy. Economic benefits that could potentially arise
from increased exports in EGS include: increasing export opportunities, fostering
technology transfer for their use and an increasing consumer surplus as companies,
individuals and governments purchase EGS at lower costs. There could be aggregate
technology affects, changes in the way products are made, amounting to less pollution for
unit of economic product produced. Trade, in a general sense, in taking advantage of
economies of scale, can maek economic activiy more effecitent, although in this case
distribution between the losers and wineners need to be taken into account.
From an importing country’s governmental viewpoint, there is of course the negative
aspect of loss in tariff revenue. Especially for poor countries, this could be a painful
shortfall, as tariff revenues constitute an important source of income for such countries.
But this perspective of course neglects the fact that it is finally the end-consumers, i.e. the
importing countries’ citizens who suffer from higher prices if the government imposes
tariff barriers on the product.
Another negative impact of liberalisation is temporary increase of unemployment as
opening markets expose domestic producers to more competition, which might cause the
producer to lose in market share. Nevertheless, in the long term, it can be expected that
WTO Seminar
Annie Haakenstad, Daniel Stumpf
WTO Seminar
Annie Haakenstad, Daniel Stumpf
more competition through free market access for foreign competitors have a positive
effect on the economy’s efficiency and innovation capacity.
developed countries and African countries. Increasing EG trade with Africa would
therefore require the development of such projects (Jha, 2008)
The developing countries’ capacity to produce EGS depends of course not only on how
far market access for environmental products are advanced. Several other factors must be
considered. One very fundamental condition is of course political stability and legal
security (first of all with respect to property rights). Without a sound and more or less
predictable political and legal framework, entrepreneurship and innovation will be
restraint.
A second condition is the producers’ ability to have credit access. The domestic financial
sector should be sufficiently developed to give producers the possibility to obtain credit
capital or equity. In addition, the country’s openness to foreign capital markets would
further stimulate economic activity.
A sectors’ competitiveness further depends on how well the telecommunication
infrastructure is developed. Easy and fast flow of information via Internet, telephone and
other means facilitate innovation and access to market information.
The lower the Foreign Direct Investment, the higher the trade in EPPs. This result can be
explained by the fact that the top EPP exporters are low income Asian and African
countries which have not attracted significant levels of FDI
In looking at climate friendly technologies and products identified by the World Bank,
30% do not show any sensitivity to tariff changes. Examining the trade implications
stemming from these 43 products for developing countries shows that approximately 26
products would be sensitive to tariffs. In this case, the dynamic comparative advantage
would not shift in favour of developing countries in the near future (2015) (Jhan, 2007)
In looking at tariffs applied to these goods, developed country rates vary from less than 1
percent and up to 2 percent. Developing countries average applied rates range from 9 to
18 percent. This shows high costs in these goods for importers in the developing world.
Annual growth rate of developing country exports for EPPs between 1997 to 2003 was
only 8.7 percent, lower than that of world exports, and significantly lower than the 12.5
percent growth rate for traditional EGS. In absolute terms, developing countries’ total
exports of EPPs rose from 13 $b to 18 $b between 1997 and 2003, while their exports of
EGs more than doubled from 27 $b to 56 $b. These figures clearly indicate that Class A
EGs offer developing countries as a group, far greater opportunities for income and
employment generation than Class B EGs.
Jha’s 2008 study of the gains from liberalisation of EGS in climate change friendly
products shows lowering barriers to trade would yield real market access benefits to
trading partners, even though shifts in comparative advantage are not predicted in the
near future..
The most direct, significant and positive correlation is to be found with respect to
technical assistance projects. This correlation is found to be robust and positive for eight
of the ten categories of EGs. Not only the higher the FDI, the higher the technical
assistance and higher trade in EGs. These patterns are highest the countries most
benefiting from CDM measures like China, the Republic of Korea, Brazil or Mexico,
seemingly because they have the relevant purchasing power. This explains the lack of
trade with low income African countries, considering there are very few projects between
In the trade context, supporting policies, which improve the general competitiveness of
exports, are also likely to improve trade in EGs. It is however not clear whether
developing countries would necessarily benefit, either in environmental or in trade terms,
if environmental goods were to be put on a faster track for liberalisation. With a shifting
dynamic comparative advantage, at least in the medium to long term, developing
countries are likely to benefit from tariff liberalisation. Nevertheless, as developed
countries already have low tariffs, developing countries may find it more beneficial to
focus on non-tariff barriers. With a growing comparative advantage it will be in
developing countries’ interests to examine the role that non-tariff barriers are likely to
play in their export markets.
The fact that only a handful of developing countries feature in the top ten importers and
exporters of EGs also suggests that these players could usefully engage in a ‘request –
offer’ approach to ensure trade wins. In this way, while the benefits may be
multilateralised, the cost of liberalisation will have to be borne only by a few players.
These would be the very players who have a lot more to gain through liberalisation.
The link between trade in EG and environmental services (ES) has been widely
acclaimed. However, whether this link is important or not, for negotiation purposes, it is
important to pursue liberalization in EGs and ESs separately. The presence or absence of
the link should not be used to slow down liberalisation in either of the sectors (Jha, 2008).
Essentially, if appropriately designed, trade liberalisation of EGS will allow for some
developing countries to expand their production and export of EGS and thus
industrial diversification. This may provide gains to support rural economics, facilitate
the integration of SMEs in global supply chains, increase employment and contribute to
poverty alleviation. However, opposite can also be true (ICTSD, 2007). Nevertheless,
many LDCs and developing countries with small rural economies appear prominently in
a ranking of EPP exports relative to GDP (see UNCTAD 2005). This observation, and the
fact that many of these countries’ exports are concentrated in natural resource based
commodities, indicates that trade liberalisation of Class B EPPs will be essential in
providing them with immediate export gains. Certainly, over time, such scenarios would
suggest that the international trading system could stimulate a shift to more sustainable
production and lowered consumption-related pollution by encouraging trade liberalisation
in EPPs.
More or less, developing countries have or potentially have an advantage in EPPs, if a
definition was to include this term. There are some opportunities in manufactured and
chemical goods used for environmental services, in which exports are growing rapidly,
WTO Seminar
Annie Haakenstad, Daniel Stumpf
WTO Seminar
Annie Haakenstad, Daniel Stumpf
but as aforementioned, this pertains to mostly middle-income countries. There could be
some dynamic affects that promote industrial diversification over time. If properly
certified, organic agricultural goods represent a realm of high potential for developing
countries, considered that in most of these countries agricultural goods are produced in
that way anyway and tariffs are extremely high. Certification or support measures could
be part of a bundling package. In reducing tariffs on PPM based EPPs, these goods
would cost less for consumers, encouraging more demand from less price-differentiated
lower cost alternatives, and could result in the erosion of low cost, polluting goods and
prompt a shift to more production in EPPs developing countries as a group for the EPPCore goods. However, when breaking this surplus down among the regional groups of
developing countries, those in Africa and the Americas show a slight trade deficit for
Class B EGs goods. (Hameway, 2006)
management if services in this area are contracted out to private service providers. This
can be undesirable for national security or public health reasons.
Environmental Issues
The most important justification for liberalising trade in EGs is an improvement in the
environmental performance of developing countries.
Trade contributes substantially to worldwide emissions of greenhouse gases. However, it
can also instigate the creation of the innovative technologies that mitigate the dire
consequences of climate change.
A typical argument is that the wealth created from more trade, which often is
accompanied by more demand for environmental protection. This is of course tempered
by the increase in economic activity, which requires more of natural resources extraction,
more use of energy and thus more pollution and environmental degradation. Perhaps the
most positive aspect could be structural effects resulting from liberalisation: changes in
the composition of the economy, less polluting sectors constituting a bigger share of the
pie. Lowered protection and thus higher relative costs for competitors in like but less
environmentally friendly products could lead to innovation and increased production in
EGS. Direct effects of trade result in more transportation and thus more pollution
(UNEP, 2005)
Other positive environmental impacts are: cheaper high-tech environmental technologies
will prevent, minimize or remedy damages to water, air or oil and help to counter wasterelated problems. EPPs on the other hand, cause less environmental damage in their
production, use or disposal.
The extent to which a developing country’s environment will benefit from reduction in
trade barriers for established technologies depends also on whether its government puts in
place stricter environmental requirements: only if companies are obliged to use cleaner
technologies they will purchase them.
Trade magnifies the negative externalities caused by production and consumption, but
these undesirable outputs could potentially be mitigated by the import and export of EGS.
Moreover, it would be difficult to convince developing countries to abstain from
economic growth just because it would have a negative impact on the environment.
Sometimes, also a political argument against liberalisation of environmental goods and
services can be heard. Governments fear to lose control over vital sector such as water
An important element of this EGS debate is the ultimate market failure presented by this
sector. Environmental problems are on the rise in almost all developing countries and
especially LDCs typically closer to the equator. Even so, trade in these goods, as we
have seen, is fairly limited to middle and developed country markets. Trade in these
goods increases as income per capita increased. Natural disaster mitigation and
prevention and air pollution prevention and amelioration, as well as consumer demand
for environmental goods are much more prevalent in wealthier countries. Certainly the
lack of a viable market, i.e. the lack of purchasing power in this realm plays a key part.
However, purchasing power is not need.
Some Solutions?
An important shortcoming of the world bank as well as for the WTO lists for EGS
classification is that both do not identify technologies or products associated with
agriculture which could reduce carbon emissions. A number of projects in this area
particularly linked to multilateral funding in the context of Kyoto Protocol could help
evolve an understanding of how these markets could develop. This shows that
international and bilateral donors would have a large role to play in directing the trade of
EGs, rather than tariff negotiations (Jha, 2008). However, other factors such as FDI,
GDP, Environmental performance and technical assistance projects are much more
important determinants of trade flows than tariffs: provision of goods and services
derived from sustainable agriculture and fisheries, sustainable forest management,
biodiversity and sustainable tourism activities have direct, positive impacts on equity
regional development, poverty and employment (ICTSD, 2007).
Funneling new financing into renewable technologies, through programs like the “Green
New Deal” could be a mechanism to restart the world economy, instigate economic
compositional shifts in production and consumption and work to alleviate poverty. At the
global level, selective liberalisation may be more economically efficient than a common
list approach because of its ability to exploit countries’ diverse production and export
specialisations. If trade mechanisms are designed correctly, EGS can also serve to
alleviate poverty (ICTSD, 2007: xxvi).
In the end, it becomes a question of whether liberalisation of these goods will really serve
to produce the environmental benefits ostensibly intended, or whether it is just a simple
liberalisation story, shrouded in environmental lip service. Does it open a pandora’s box
to non-product related restrictions? These restrictions only need to be extended if
countries chose to. The bigger question is whether countries are ready to stand up and
affirm their responsibility to the environment and incorporate the externalities posed by
pollution in extraction, production, consumption and disposal. The WTO is certainly a
WTO Seminar
Annie Haakenstad, Daniel Stumpf
beast driven by politics and economic gains, it was founded on the merits of mutual
benefit and reciprocity and what is more reciprocal than protecting the shared oceans and
waters that cross our national borders and effect all people? To say that the WTO is not
and should not be concerned with environment denies the fact that all economic activity
has an effect on the environment, as it uses resources and leaves them sometimes
unalterably degraded. Most pertinently, environmentally degrading actions have much
more of an affect on the poor than on the rich, who have the capacity to pay for a nicer
and cleaner environment. Although it may be lip service to altruistic groups, WTO
members have proclaimed the institution fit to deal with development and environment.
Liberalisation will in tempered ways encourage progress in technologies that try to
ameliorate this situation. Lowering the costs of these goods compared to others is one
way to lighten the heavy externality of pollution. Transfering these technologies,
recognizing the services of ecosystems and less polluting agriculture is one way to
“leapfrog” Africa over such dirty ways to development. But it cannot be pretended that
leapfrogging is just another way to invoke a linear path to attain the west’s development.
In conclusion, it can be said that negotiations about EGS should be adapted in order to
make progress: EEPs need to be included, the definitions need to use a multi-faceted
approach and country specific adaptive list, and it needs to be bundled with financing and
certification schemes that will benefit the developing world.
WTO Seminar
Annie Haakenstad, Daniel Stumpf
Bibliography
UNEP Briefing on Environmental Goods, 21 October 2008. International Environmental
House, Geneva, Switzerland
Howse, Robert & van Bork, Petrus B., “Options for Liberalising Trade in Environmental
Goods in the Doha Round.” International Centre for Trade and Sustainable Developmet
(ICTSD) Issue Paper No. 2. Geneva, 2006.
Internatioanl Centre for Trade and Sustainable Development (ICTSD): Programme on
Trade and Envrionment “Trade in Envrionmental Goods and Services and Sutainable
Development: Domestic Considerations and Strategies of WTO Negotiations.” ICTSD:
Geneva, December 2007.
International Centre Trade in Sustainable Development (ICTSD). “Liberalisation of
Trade in Environmental Goods for Climate Change Mitigation: The Sustainable
Development Context”
International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD) & United Nations
Environmental Programme: Dividion of Technology Industry and Economics, economics
and Trade Branch (UNEP). Environment and Trade Handbook. 2nd Edition. UNEP:
Geneva, 2005.
von Bülow, Michael. “The essentials in Copenhagen.”
http://en.cop15.dk/news/view+news?newsid=876 16/03/2009 10:30
Jhan, Veena. “Envrionmental Priorities and Trade Policy for Environmental Goods: A
Reality Check.” International Centre for Trade and Sustainable Developmet (ICTSD)
Issue Paper No. 7. Geneva, 2008.
Jhan Veena. “EGS and Climate Change: A Reality Check.” Presentation at UNEP:
http://www.unep.ch/etb/events/Trade%20and%20Climate%20Change%20Presentations/
EGS%20and%20Climate%20changeRev.veenaJha.ppt (Accessed 25 April, 2009)
Yu, Vicente Paolo. “WTO Negotiating Strategy on Environmental Goods and Services
for Asian Developing Countries. ICTSD Trade and Environment Series, Geneva, 2007.
http://www.ictsd.org/pubs/ictsd_series/env?2007-04-V.Yu.pdf