Abstract
Trade restrictions in the form of eco-tariffs addressing PPM pollution of imports have been considered by policy-makers, both in the context of domestic and global pollution. However, so far such eco-tariffs have not become part of environmental or trade policy. One reason for this is that they are not sanctioned by the multilateral trade regime, codified in the GATT/WTO. At the conclusion of the Uruguay Round1, a Committee on Trade and Environment (CTE) was established to assess whether a change of the regulations to further environmental protection and sustainable development may be warranted.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
The Uruguay Round lasted from 1986–1993; it was the last one of eight trade rounds between the Contracting Parties of the GATT; see next section.
GATT, which came into being in 1947, is charged with overseeing international trade in goods and, in particular, the liberalisation of trade by means of negotiated reduction in tariff barriers. Trade negotiations have taken place through a succession of ‘Rounds’ of which the last (‘Uruguay Round’) resulted in the integration of the GATT into the WTO in 1995. The WTO encompasses administration of a liberal, open system of trade in goods, services and trade related-intellectual property rights. The WTO’s larger scope of responsibilities and its status as an international organisation corresponds to the intent of the 1944 Bretton Woods Agreement to set up an International Trade Organisation (ITO) to administer a multilateral trade regime. The ITO was to cooperate with two other international organisations whose establishment was decided in Bretton Woods: the International Monetary Fund with the mandate to monitor exchange rate stability, and the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development with the task to provide developing countries with capital to build up their economic capacity. However, only the latter two organisations were created. Instead of the ITO, GATT was negotiated, originally as a provisional agreement (compare Trebilcock & Howse [1995, 20/21]).
For the relevant paragraphs from GATT Articles see Appendix.
This includes environmental product taxes which can be adjusted at the border to prevent imported products from undermining the environmentally beneficial effect of domestic taxes and regulations (compare Eglin [1995, 772]).
See Appendix.
We give here only a brief overview of these controversial issues; they are taken up in detail in chapters 12 and 13.
See OECD [1995b, 7; 30] and Sorsa [1995, 1/2; 7]. GATT conformity of product standards is achieved by the Technical Barriers of Trade (TBT) and Sanitary and Phytosanitary Standards (SPSS) Codes which are designed to prevent countries from using product-related standards and technical as well as sanitary and phytosanitary regulations to create unnecessary obstacles to trade. Furthermore, TBT and SPSS codes develop rules and disciplines to prevent implicit discrimination against imports through the use of product standards. (See Hauser & Schanz [1995, 113–116] for more details on the TBT Code and Hauser & Schanz [1995, 184–186] for more details on the SPSS Code). Apart from binding standards, there are also voluntary ones — so called eco-labels — which can be potent barriers to entry into markets of environmentally sensitive goods (Bhagwati [1993a, 46]). Owing to their voluntary nature, eco-labels are not subject to GATT regulations and often influenced by domestic producer lobbies to discriminate against foreign importers (Gornig & Silagi [1992, 757], Sorsa [1995, 4/5]). Similarly, specifications of packaging requirements or recycling content are often set in a discriminatory fashion (Sorsa [1995, 5]).
A distinction or discrimination of a product at the border is only possible if the criterion upon which such discrimination takes place is incorporated in the product (Mikesell [1993, 15], Thomas & Tereposky [1993b, 26]).
See Feketekuty [1993, 184] and Sorsa [1995, 7].
See French [1993b, 14] and Mikesell [1993, 17].
See Sorsa [1995, 9 & 1992, 128].
See Appendix.
See Appendix for extracts from the mandate of the CTE. The CTE is not the first body dealing with these issues. Its work builds upon the foundations laid by the former GATT Working Group on Environmental Measures and International Trade which met from 1991 – 1993 and the Sub-Committee of the Preparatory Committee of the WTO which met though 1994 (OECD [1995b, 15/16]).
This mandate is based on Principle 12 of the Rio Declaration which states that “states should cooperate to promote a supportive and open international economic system that would lead to economic growth and sustainable development in all countries to better address the problems of environmental degradation”, and on Agenda 21, Section I, Chapter 2 where §21 states as an objective: “to make international trade and environmental policies mutually supportive in favour of sustainable development.” (Sand et al. [1994]).
For the remaining items which are discussed in the CTE see Appendix.
WTO [1996a].
The conference took place December 1996; for a summary of the conference’s results see IMF [1997, 6].
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2000 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Kraus, C. (2000). Policy Debate: Introductory Remarks. In: Import Tariffs as Environmental Policy Instruments. Economy & Environment, vol 19. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-015-9614-5_11
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-015-9614-5_11
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-90-481-5461-6
Online ISBN: 978-94-015-9614-5
eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive