Leonardo Balieiro - Trade and Environment

In the Desombre and Barkin's article the authors discussed cases in which the US tried to unilaterally use trade restriction as a means to enforce its environmental policies and in doing so they analyze the relationship between trade and environmental policy

Although the first US attempts of using trade as a means to enforce environmental policy were met with rejection by the World Trade Organization, such cases (Sea Turtles and Dolphins) were essential in establishing precedents for how the WTO, a trade organization, could be essential in the environmental debate.

Such precedents, one could argue, are essential in establishing the role of the WTO as an organization with an enough teeth to make sure that environmental regimes involving trade restrictions are successful. One could also argue that because trade restrictions are such a compelling tool in ensuring that countries comply with environmental policy, that there is no need to create an entirely new international organization to deal with environmental issues.

The usual critique of environmental regimes, such as the Kyoto protocol, is that they lack enough power to force countries into complying with its provisions. Countries are either giving to much freedom in how they implement environmental policies envisioned in the regimes, or they are given too much freedom of interpretation. The result is that countries might even agree to become part of the talks, but eventually they might just back out. A more stern approach would be necessary to ensure that countries not only agree to be a part of the regimes, but that they actually do that which they set out to do. For that approach to be feasible, an international organization needs to have the mechanisms to put it into action. The WTO has mechanisms built into it that have been proven to be very efficient in dealing countries’ natural propensity to not comply, namely trade restrictions. Trade restrictions create the urgency necessary to propel countries into action and compliance. However, some might argue that trade restrictions benefit countries differently and that they might put some countries at a disadvantage. Taking that into consideration, some might say that the WTO is in fact not the best medium to dealing with environmental policy. But that is not the case. The WTO also has a mechanism to deal with disputes between member nations. Such a mechanism is essential to ensure that both developed and developing nations have their needs met and one doesn’t profit at the cost of another’s demise. Critics of the WTO’s dispute mechanism say that richer nations often get better deals while others are left with losses, but that is also not the case. All member nations, developed and developing alike, have an interest in preserving the organization’s legitimacy and authority; as such, it is essential that richer nations adhere to the decisions made by the WTO’s dispute settlement mechanism so that other countries will do so as well when they bring a case before the organization.

Some have spoken of the need for an entirely new organization with authority over all issues environment. While decentralization is in fact a big hindering factor in advancing environmental efforts, the creation of an entirely new international organization may not be necessary. Perhaps the best alternative would be to have a branch of the WTO that deals with environmental issues alone, and that branch would benefit from all the mechanisms already present within the organization. Trade and environment are inherently connected. Therefore, it makes a lot of sense to have a trade organization that is also responsible for environmental policy. The WTO has proven that it has the right tools for the job, we don’t need another organization. All we need is to adapt the WTO to deal with environmental issues as well as trade.

 --Leonardo Balieiro