The WTO as an Environmental Regulator and Decision Maker

Matthew Burk

The World Trade Organization as an Environmental Regulator and Decision Maker

              One of the biggest problems in the modern day environmental debate is the lack of power that can enforce laws and protect the environment. Many NGO’s such as Greenpeace or the Wildlife conversation society have the power and influence to get things done, but anything on such a large scale seems nearly impossible to accomplish. The WTO is one of the only organizations that has worldwide authority of the power to get things done is the WTO and they are a trade organization. While it is great that the WTO has the power and makes these environmental decisions, it seems backwards that a trade organization is one of the most powerful entities in environmental regulation and decision making. A trade organization should not be making environmental regulations and decisions on its own, and a separate panel for environmental issues should be created by the WTO.

            While it is great that the WTO makes the environmental decisions that they do, such as the shrimp-turtle of tuna-dolphin cases as discussed in class, are they really the best ones to be doing so? While some may say that the WTO is necessary as an environmental regulator since they are the only ones who can get anything done. Take for example the shrimp-turtle and tuna-dolphin cases discussed in readings and class. When it came down to the end in the shrimp-turtle case, the WTO made a balanced decision that at first disagreed with the U.S., but supported them on the second vote. For the tuna-dolphin case, the WTO ended up ruling against the United States, causing many to believe that the WTO is biased and has a massive conflict of interest

            The tuna-dolphin case is a perfect example of how the WTO can be seen as biased against any environmental regulations that interfere with trade or restrict the flow of business. When the United States began to require dolphin-safe labeling for all tuna, the WTO’s dispute settlement system had to get involved because non U.S. fisheries thought it was discriminatory and that the United States did not have the authority. The WTO ended up ruling that the dolphin-safe labeling that the United States requires is fine for any tuna caught in U.S. waters, but foreign fisheries could not be held to the same standards.

            While I don’t believe that the WTO is a good environmental regulator in its current state, with a little bit of change they could certainly be so. The WTO’s dispute settlement system is what currently makes decisions on issues such as tuna-dolphin or shrimp-turtle, but this settlement system does not take into account sustainability or preservation, only trade issues. When the WTO ruled on tuna-dolphin, they did so in terms of trade, with almost no regard for the environment. If the WTO added another board or settlement system that is based upon the environment and sustainable practices, it could be even more effective than it has previously. Since the WTO has the power to make decisions that affect the environment, doesn’t it make sense than environmentalists should have something to say about the environmental issues and repercussions?

            As said by Maurice Strong “The environment is not going to be saved by environmentalists. Environmentalists do not hold the levels of economic power.” Ecological modernist theory states that trade leads to growth, and that growth leads to the protection and sustainability of the environment. If you combine this theory as well as Maurice Strong’s previous statement, it makes sense that the WTO would be the organization to help save the environment, considering that they have the economic power and can advance trade. The bias is the only problem and creating an additional dispute system or sub-committee would be the perfect solution to the criticisms of the WTO. With the addition of this new system, the dispute settlement system could get a further recommendation from a sub-committee of environmentalists which would help them in their decision, helping solve the problem.

            Having this additional sub-committee of environmentalists or a new settlement system that keeps the environment in mind would undoubtedly help the WTO as well as the environment. Through economic sustainability the WTO could actually improve economic trade and growth between countries while simultaneously calming down the critics and environmentalists who believe that if is not fit to make such decisions. Critiques such as the WTO hiding their true goals and having little civil-society access would immediately go away. This sub-committee of environmentalists would finally hold the WTO accountable for issues that it seems to overlook. This could even help the economy and bridge the North-South divide that the WTO is often accused of encouraging with its practices. Currently the WTO is one of the only worldwide organizations that has to power to make enforceable environmental regulations and end disputes, but the bias is to strong. Creating an additional sub-committee or revising the dispute settlement system would allow the WTO to make powerful environmental decisions and silence the critics.