Trade, Environment and the Transfer of Environmentally Sound Technology

  • Veena Jha
  • Ana Paola Teixeira

Abstract

It is generally understood that preservation of global and local environments will require the internalisation of currently external environmental costs. This need has manifested itself in both multilateral environmental agreements (MEAs) and in the formulation of environmentally orientated product and processing standards. Such standards are often devised to encourage producers to use environmentally sound technology (EST) or change their product or processing designs so that they are more environmentally friendly.

Keywords

Dioxide Europe Ozone Expense Abate 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Notes and references

  1. 1.
    See Box 3-A, ‘The Global-Local Continuum’, in Office of Technology Assessment. Trade and Environment: Conflicts and Opportunities, US Congress, OTA-BP-ITE-94 (Washington, DC: OTA, 1992). See also D. Robertson, ‘Trade and Environment: Harmonization of Technical Standards’, in World Bank, International Trade and Environment, P. Low (ed.) (Washington, DC: World Bank, 1992).Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    J. Bhagwati and T. N. Srinivasan, Lectures on International Trade (Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press, 1983).Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    OECD, ‘The OECD Environment Industry: Situation, Prospects, and Government Policies’, OCDE/GD(92)1 (Paris: OECD, 1992).Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Office of Technology Assessment, Trade and Environment: Conflicts and Opportunities, U.S. Congress, OTA-BP-ITE-94 (Washington, DC: OTA, 1992), p. 92.Google Scholar
  5. 6.
    See A. Rath and B. Herbert-Copley, ‘Green Technologies for Development: Transfer, Trade and Cooperation’, Searching Series 6 (Ottawa: IDRC, 1993); andGoogle Scholar
  6. 6a.
    C. Almeida, ‘Development and Transfer of Environmentally Sound Technologies in Manufacturing: A Survey’, Discussion Paper No. 58 (Geneva: UNCTAD, 1993).Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    For a comparison of the definitions of ESTs adopted by UNCED and the OECD, see A. Barnett, ‘The International Transfer of Technology and Environmentally Sustainable Development’, paper prepared for the UNCTAD Workshop on the Transfer and Development of Environmentally Sound Technologies, Oslo, October 1993.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    C. Almeida, ‘Development and Transfer of Environmentally Sound Technologies in Manufacturing: A Survey’, Discussion Paper no. 58 (Geneva: UNCTAD, 1993).Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    H. J. Leonhard, Pollution and the Struggle for the World Product -Multinational Corporations, Environment and International Comparative Advantage (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988).Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    OECD, ‘The OECD Environment Industry: Situation, Prospects, and Government Policies’, OCDE/GD(92)l (Paris: OECD, 1992).Google Scholar
  11. 13.
    US Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, Trade and Environment: Conflicts and Opportunities, OTA-BP-ITE-94 (Washington, DC: OTA, 1992).Google Scholar
  12. 14.
    Within the OECD, the differences are the largest between North America, Western Europe and Japan. However within Europe the differences are striking between the Netherlands and the Scandinavian countries — where the political culture is characterised by the pursuit of consensus between government and business groups — and Germany, France and Britain. For a more complete explanation, see G. Kleeper, ‘The Political Economy of Trade and Environment in Western Europe’, and C. Van Grasstek, ‘The Political Economy of Trade and the Environment in the United States’, in World Bank, International Trade and Environment, P. Low (ed.) (Washington DC: World Bank, 1992).Google Scholar
  13. 15.
    M. Iba, ‘Japanese Environmental Policies and Trade Policies: Trade Opportunities for Developing Countries’, paper prepared for UNCTAD/ UNDP project, 1992.Google Scholar
  14. 17.
    O. Kuik and H. Verbruggen (eds), In Search of Indicators of Sustainable Development (Dordrecht and Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1991).Google Scholar
  15. 18.
    V. Jha, R. Vossenaar and S. Zarrilli, ‘Eco-labelling and International Trade: Preliminary Reports from Seven Systems’, paper prepared for the ISO subgroup on Labelling, London, May 1993.Google Scholar
  16. 19.
    I. Scholz and J. Wiemann, Ecological Requirements to be Satisfied by Consumer Goods — A New Challenge for Developing Countries’ Exports to Germany (Berlin: German Development Institute, 1993).Google Scholar
  17. 20.
    US Department of Commerce, ‘A Competitive Assessment of the U.S. Industrial Air Pollution Control Equipment Industry’, (Washington DC: International Trade Administration, August 1990), Table 20.Google Scholar
  18. 21.
    OECD, ‘The OECD Environment Industry: Situation, Prospects, and Government Policies’, OCDE/GD(92)l (Paris: OECD, 1992).Google Scholar
  19. 22.
    OECD, Macroeconomics Evaluation of Environmental Programmes (Paris: OECD, 1978).Google Scholar
  20. 23.
    OECD, ‘Trade Issues in the Transfer of Clean Technologies’, Technology and Environment Programme, OCDE/GD(92)93 (Paris: OECD, 1992).Google Scholar
  21. 24.
    I. Scholz and J. Wiemann, Ecological Requirements to be Satisfied by Consumer Goods — A New Challenge for Developing Countries’ Exports to Germany (Berlin: German Development Institute, 1993).Google Scholar
  22. 26.
    O. E. El-Arini, ‘Technology Transfer and the Montreal Protocol’, paper presented at the Conference on the Montreal Protocol for the Indian Industry, New Delhi, India, 28–29 January 1993.Google Scholar
  23. 27.
    UNCTAD, World Investment Report 1993 (New York: United Nations, 1993).Google Scholar
  24. 28.
    OECD, ‘Trade Issues in the Transfer of Clean Technologies’, Technology and Environment Programme, OCDE/GD(92)93 (Paris: OECD, 1992); and Congressional Research Service, Financing New International Environmental Commitments, report prepared for the Committee on Foreign Affairs of the US House of Representatives and the Committee of Foreign Relations of the US Senate by the Congressional Research Service, Joint Committee Print, (Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office, 1992).Google Scholar
  25. 29.
    World Bank, abcxyz123 International Trade and Environment, P. Low (ed.) (Washington DC: World Bank, 1992).Google Scholar
  26. 30.
    H. J. Leonhard, Pollution and the Struggle for the World Product — Multinational Corporations, Environmental and International Comparative Advantage (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 31.
    Industrial Development Authority (IDA), Industrial Plan 1978–82 (Washington DC: IDA, 1988).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© UNCTAD 1997

Authors and Affiliations

  • Veena Jha
  • Ana Paola Teixeira

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations