Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-xfwgj Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-26T01:21:32.688Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Removing barriers to trade on environmental goods: an appraisal

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 June 2013

GAËLLE BALINEAU  and
JAIME DE MELO
GAËLLE BALINEAU*
Affiliation:
FERDI
JAIME DE MELO*
Affiliation:
University of Geneva and FERDI
*
*Email: gaellebalineau@gmail.com
**Email: Jaime.demelo@unige.ch
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This paper reviews the extent of reductions in tariffs on environmental goods (EGs) by country participation in the negotiations mandated by a Doha Ministerial Decision in November 2001. Symptomatic of the cleavages across countries throughout the Round, little progress was achieved during the negotiations in defining an approach to a multilateral reduction in protection of EGs. Conflicting interests and differing perceptions of the benefits from increased trade in EGs was reflected in the different approaches proposed by members (request and offer, integrated project, list approach, hybrid approach), and for the few countries (13) that adopted a list approach, there was little overlap across submissions. For all income groups, on average, EGs are less protected than other goods and countries reduced protection by about 50% from initial levels in 1996 leaving little room for further exchange of market access. Difficulties in applying the two complementary conceptions of EGs: (i) ‘goods for environmental management’, and (ii) ‘environmentally preferable products' are reviewed and mentioned as reasons for the lack of progress during the negotiations. Inspection of the submission lists against a ‘core list’ of 26 EGs drawn up by the WTO shows that this ‘core list’ was mostly made up of products in which developed countries had a comparative advantage, and that countries that submitted lists generally avoided including on their lists the most highly protected goods.

Type
Review Article
Information
World Trade Review , Volume 12 , Issue 4 , October 2013 , pp. 693 - 718
Copyright
Copyright © Gaëlle Balineau and Jaime De Melo 2013 

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.)

References

Baldwin, R. (2010), ‘Understanding the GATT's Wins and the WTO's Woes’, Policy Insight Paper No. 49, CEPR, London.Google Scholar
Balineau, G. and Dufeu, I. (2010), ‘Are Fair Trade Goods Credence Goods? A New Proposal, with French Illustrations’, Journal of Business Ethics, 92(suppl.2): 331–345.Google Scholar
Balineau, G. and de Melo, J. (2011), ‘Stalemate at the Negotiations on Environmental Goods and Services at the Doha Round’, FERDI Document de Travail, No. 28, www.ferdi.fr/Documents-de-travail.html#P28.Google Scholar
Brenton, P., Edward-Jones, G., and Jensen, M. F. (2009), ‘Carbon Labelling and Low-Income Country Exports: A Review of the Development Policy Issues’, Development Policy Review, 27(3): 243–67.Google Scholar
Cadot, O., de Melo, J. and Olarreaga, M. (2005), ‘Lobbying and the Structure of Protection in Rich and Poor Countries’, The World Bank Economic Review, 2004, 18(3): 345–366.Google Scholar
Claro, E., Lucas, N., Sugathan, M., Marconini, M., and Lendo, E. (2007), ‘Trade in Environmental Goods and Services and Sustainable Development: Domestic Considerations and Strategies for WTO Negotiations’, ICTSD Environmental Goods and Services Series, Policy Discussion Paper, International Centre for Trade and Sustainable Development, Geneva, Switzerland.Google Scholar
Conconi, P. and Howse, R. (2011), ‘Panel Report on EC-IT Products’, WT/DS/375, mimeo ULB.Google Scholar
Grossman, G. M. and Helpman, E. (1994), ‘Protection for Sale’, American Economic Review, 84(4): 833–850.Google Scholar
Hamwey, R. (2005), ‘Environmental Goods: Identifying Items of Export Interest to Developing Countries’, CBTF Briefing Note, UNCTAD secretariat.Google Scholar
Hillman, A.L. (1982), ‘Declining Industries and Political-Support Protectionist Motives’, American Economic Review, 72(5): 1180–1187.Google Scholar
Howse, R. and van Bork, P.B. (2006), ‘Options for Liberalizing Trade in Environmental Goods in the Doha Round’, ICTSD Trade and Environment Series Issue Paper No. 2, International Centre for Trade and Sustainable Development, Geneva, Switzerland.Google Scholar
Hufbauer, G.C., Charnovitz, S., and Kim, J. (2009), Global Warming and the World Trading System, Peterson Institute for International Economics.Google Scholar
Jha, V. (2008) ‘Environmental Priorities and Trade Policy for Environmental Goods: A Reality Check’, ICTSD Trade and Environment Series Issue Paper No. 7, International Centre for Trade and Sustainable Development, Geneva, Switzerland.Google Scholar
Kim, J.A. (2007), Issues of Dual Use and Reviewing Product Coverage of Environmental Goods, OECD Trade and Environment Working Papers 2007–01, OECD Publications, Paris.Google Scholar
Moïsé, E. and Steenblik, R. (2011), Trade-Related Measures Based on Processes and Production Methods in the Context of Climate-Change Mitigation, OECD Trade and Environment Working Paper 2011–04, OECD Publications, Paris.Google Scholar
Monkelbaan, J. (2011), ‘Trade Preferences for Environmentally Friendly Goods and Services’, ICTSD Global Platform on Climate Change, Trade and Sustainable Energy, International Centre for Trade and Sustainable Development, Geneva, Switzerland.Google Scholar
OECD/Eurostat (1999), The Environmental Goods and Services Industry: Manual on Data Collection and Analysis, OECD Publications, Paris.Google Scholar
Schmid, G. (2012), ‘Technology Transfer in the CDM: The Role of Host-Country Characteristics’, Climate Policy, 12(6): 722–740.Google Scholar
Steenblik, R. (2005a), Environmental Goods: A Comparison of the APEC and OECD Lists, OECD Trade and Environment Working Paper 2005–04, OECD Publications, Paris.Google Scholar
Steenblik, R. (2005b), Liberalising Trade in ‘Environmental Goods’: Some Practical Considerations, OECD Trade and Environment Working Papers, No. 2005/05, OECD Publishing, doi: 10.1787/888676434604.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, Switzerland.Google Scholar
UNEP & IISD (2005), Environment and Trade: A Handbook, 2nd Edition, Winnipeg (Manitoba, Canada).Google Scholar
Vossenaar, R. (2010), ‘Climate-Related Single-use Environmental Goods’, ICTSD Issue Paper No. 13, International Centre for Trade and Sustainable Development, Geneva, Switzerland.Google Scholar
WTO–UNEP Report (2009), Trade and Climate Change, UNEP–WTO, 166p.Google Scholar