Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-m9kch Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-21T21:28:22.507Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The critical mass approach to achieve a deal on green goods and services: what is on the table? How much should we expect?1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 September 2015

Jaime de Melo  and
Mariana Vijil
Jaime de Melo
Affiliation:
FERDI, 63 Boulevard Francois Mitterand, 63000 Clermont-Ferrand, France. E-mail: Jaime.de_melo@ferdi.fr
Mariana Vijil
Affiliation:
DG Treasury and FERDI, Paris, France. E-mail: marianavijil@yahoo.fr
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In July 2014 a group of 14 countries (the ‘Davos Group’) launched negotiations on liberalizing trade in ‘green goods’ (also known as environmental goods – EGs), focusing on the elimination of tariffs for a list of 54 products. With an average tariff of 1.8 per cent, this group has little to offer even if the list were extended to the 411 products on the ‘WTO list’. Taking into account tariff dispersion, their tariff structure on EGs would be equivalent to a uniform tariff of 3.4 per cent, about half the uniform tariff-equivalent for non EGs products. Enlarging the number of participants to low-income countries might be possible as, on average, their imports would not increase by more than 8 per cent. Because of the strong complementarities between trade in EGs and trade in environmental services, these should also be brought into the negotiation in spite of the likely difficulties in reaching agreement on their scope.

Type
Research Article
Information
Environment and Development Economics , Volume 21 , Issue 3 , June 2016 , pp. 393 - 414
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2015 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

1

This paper draws on and extends Melo and Vijil (2014).

References

Arkolakis, C., Costinot, A., and Rodriguez-Clare, A. (2012), ‘New trade models, same old gains?’, American Economic Review 102(1): 94–130.Google Scholar
Balineau, G. and de Melo, J. (2011), ‘Stalemate at the negotiations on environmental goods and services at the Doha round’, FERDI Working Paper Series No. 28, FERDI, Clermont-Ferrand.Google Scholar
Balineau, G. and de Melo, J. (2013), ‘Removing barriers to trade on environmental goods: an appraisal’, World Trade Review 12(4): 693–718.Google Scholar
Cadot, O., de Melo, J., and Olarreaga, M. (2004), ‘Lobbying and the structure of protection in rich and poor countries’, World Bank Economic Review 18(3): 345–366.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Francois, J. and Hoekman, B. (2010), ‘Services trade and policy’, Journal of Economic Literature 48(3): 642–692.Google Scholar
Geloso Grosso, M. (2005), ‘Managing request-offer negotiations under the GATS: the case of environmental services’, OECD Trade Policy Papers No. 11, OECD Publishing, Paris.Google Scholar
Grether, J.M., Mathys, N., and de Melo, J. (2012), ‘Unravelling the world-wide pollution haven effect’, Journal of International Trade and Development 21(1): 131–162.Google Scholar
Hoekman, B. (2014), ‘Sustaining multilateral trade cooperation in a multipolar world economy’, Review of International Organizations 9(2): 241–260.Google Scholar
Hufbauer, G., Charnovitz, S., and Kim, J. (2009), Global Warming and the World Trading System, Washington, DC: Peterson Institute for International Economics.Google Scholar
ICSTD (2015), ‘Environmental Goods Agreement trade talks on track for negotiation stage’, International Centre for Trade and Sustainable Development, Geneva, [Available at] http://www.ictsd.org/bridges-news/biores/news/environmental-goods-agreement-trade-talks-on-track-for-negotiation-stage.Google Scholar
Kee, H., Nicita, A., and Olarreaga, M. (2008), ‘Import demand elasticities and trade distortions’, Review of Economics and Statistics 90(4): 666–682.Google Scholar
Kee, H., Nicita, A., and Olarreaga, M. (2009), ‘Estimating trade restrictiveness indices’, Economic Journal 90(4): 666–682.Google Scholar
Kennett, M. and Steenblik, R. (2005), ‘Environmental goods and services: a synthesis of country studies’, OECD Trade and Environment Working Paper No. 2005/03, OECD Publishing, Paris.Google Scholar
Kirkpatrick, C. (2006), ‘Trade in environmental services: assessing the implications for developing countries in the GATS’, ICTSD Trade and Environment Series Issue Paper No. 3, International Centre for Trade and Sustainable Development, Geneva.Google Scholar
Marchetti, J. and Roy, M. (2013), ‘The TISA initiative: an overview of market access issues’, WTO Staff Working Paper No. ERSD-2013-11, World Trade Organization, Geneva.Google Scholar
Melo, J. de (2014), ‘Trade in a green growth development strategy: issues and challenges’, Revue d'Economie du Développement 22(2): 99–126.Google Scholar
Melo, J. de and Vijil, M. (2014), ‘Barriers to trade in environmental goods and services: how important are they? How much progress at reducing them?’, CEPR Discussion Paper No. DP9869.Google Scholar
Messerlin, P. (2013), ‘The quest for an efficient instrument in services negotiations’, in Evenett, S. and Jara, A. (eds), Building on Bali. A Work Programme for the WTO, VoxEU.org ebook, pp. 121–126.Google Scholar
Miroudot, S. and Shepherd, B. (2014), ’The paradox of ‘Preferences’: regional trade agreements and trade costs in services’, World Economy 37(12): 1751–1772.Google Scholar
Miroudot, S., Sauvage, J., and Sudreau, M. (2010), ‘Multilateralizing regionalism: how preferential are services commitments in regional trade agreements?’, OECD Trade Policy Paper No. 106, OECD Publishing, Paris.Google Scholar
Miroudot, S., Sauvage, J., and Shepherd, B. (2013), ‘Measuring the cost of international trade in services’, World Trade Review 12(4): 719–739.Google Scholar
Nakatomi, M. (2013), ‘Plurilateral agreements: a viable alternative to the WTO?’, ADBI Working Paper Series No. 439, Asian Development Bank, Tokyo.Google Scholar
National Board of Trade (2014), Making Green Trade Happen: Environmental Goods and Indispensable Services, Stockholm: Kommerskollegium.Google Scholar
Novy, D. (2013), ‘Gravity redux: measuring international trade costs with panel data’, Economic Inquiry 51(1): 101–121.Google Scholar
OECD (2005), Trade that Benefits the Environment and Development, Paris: OECD Trade Policy Studies.Google Scholar
OECD (2014), ‘Services trade restrictiveness index: policy brief’, OECD, Paris, [Available at] http://www.oecd.org/tad/services-trade/regulatory-database-services-trade-restrictiveness-index.htm.Google Scholar
Steenblik, R. (2005), ‘Liberalizing trade in ‘environmental goods’: some practical considerations’, OECD Trade and Environment Working Paper No. 2005/05, OECD, Paris.Google Scholar
Steenblik, R. (2007), ‘Biofuels at what cost? Government support for ethanol and biodiesel in selected OECD countries: a synthesis of reports addressing subsidies in Australia, Canada, the European Union, Switzerland and the United States’, Global Subsidies Initiative of the International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD), Geneva.Google Scholar
Steenblik, R. and Geloso Grosso, M. (2011), ‘Trade in services related to climate change: an exploratory analysis’, OECD Trade and Environment Working Paper No. 2011/03, OECD, Paris.Google Scholar
UN-DESA, (2010), Manual on Statistics of International Trade in Services MSITS 2010, Geneva: United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs.Google Scholar
Victor, D. (2015), ‘The case for climate clubs’, E15Initiative, International Centre for Trade and Sustainable Development (ICTSD) and World Economic Forum, Geneva.Google Scholar
WTO (2000), ‘Communication from the European Communities and their member states’, Council for Trade in Services Special Session S/CSS/W/38, WTO, Geneva.Google Scholar
WTO (2010), ‘Background note on environmental services’, Council for Trade in Services S/C/W/320, WTO, Geneva.Google Scholar
WTO (2011), World Trade Report: The WTO and Preferential Trade Agreements: From Co-existence to Coherence, Geneva: WTO.Google Scholar
Supplementary material: PDF

de Melo and Vijil supplementary material

Online Appendix

Download de Melo and Vijil supplementary material(PDF)
PDF 94.8 KB