Friday, November 15, 2019
Carbon Reduction Treaties and the World Trade Organization
Carbon Reduction Treaties and the World Trade Organization    Trade and Climate Change: Proposal  for Reconciling the WTO with Carbon-Reduction Treaties  Executive Summary  The relationship between climate change and the rules controlling the international players is an area that has elicited a lot of debate. Some of the trade agreements undermine the ability of governments to implement climate policies in their own countries. The fight for climate change is a battle for the policy makers in trade since if the conditions are not conducive for trade to happen; their profits will dwindle. Developing countries will have to suffer an extra cost on their exports if the playing field is not level with the international partners. All players in the provision of goods and services should price carbon emission costs correctly to ensure market efficiency. The policy and regulatory changes needed should affect both trade and climate change. This should be a global initiative and not just the leading partners. The effort and implement of proper policies by one party will not be sufficient, as their action will be watered down by the activities by the others. This p   aper looks at the effects climate change has had on business at the local and international level. It also looks at ways in which the World Trade Organization rules and regulations conflict with International conventions on climate change, especially carbon emission reduction. Finally, I attempt to make proposals on how this problem of climate change could be resolved without necessarily causing an imbalance in the markets.   Trade and Climate Change: Proposal  for Reconciling the WTO with Carbon-Reduction Treaties  Introduction  Free trade could improve the welfare  of many countries. This is rarely achievable though since countries have  varying economic powers. They get into trade agreements with neighbors and have  a sort of exchange of resources. These relationships are usually a give and  take with the politics playing a major role. The inter-relation between climate  change and international trade has gravely impacted developing countries. Much  emphasis has not been given to provide a solution to a combined effort to  reduce the effects of global warming caused by human intervention. Our actions  now have far-reaching consequences and will affect generations to come.à   In the quest to meet the needs of our  respective countries, we are depleting the natural resources and poisoning the  environment. This paper will attempt to highlight the potential areas of  conflict between various economic interests and the interventions proposed by  the trade partners and advocacy groups such as Wort Trade Organizations (WTO).   Background  The world stands at a crucial  juncture with respect to global economic policy development. Sustainable Development  Goals (SDGs) have been formulated through global governance to bring forth a  new perception of the issue of climate change to protect the earthââ¬â¢s economy,  the human race and the environment (Edouard & Bernstein, 2016).  Carbon-Reduction Treaties such as the Kyoto Protocol and the Paris Agreement on  Climate Change together with the SDGs are examples of currents ways through  which world leaders have come together for the sake of saving the world economy  by agreeing to join forces and tackle carbon emissions with one voice.   The United Nations Framework  Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) is a body of International partners who  have come together to engage on matters concerning the worldââ¬â¢s climate. It  started as a call to countries to limit global temperatures and control climate  changes and working towards the impact of already existing effects of climate  change (Park, 2016).   The Paris Climate Agreement is an accord within the (UNFCCC) was adopted in December 2015. This Agreement deals with greenhouse gas emission mitigation, adoption and finance commencing 2020.à   The agreement was negotiated by 196 parties and signed by 195 members. The Paris Agreement reached an agreement in 2015 where the signatories concurred to restrict global warming ââ¬Ëwell below 2à °C and to pursue further reduction of these temperatures to 1.5 degrees Celsius (Raes, Liao, Chen & Seinfeld, 2010).   Each country is expected to  formulate policies and implement them the best way they see fit and finally  report to the UNFCCC on their contribution towards mitigation of global  warming. They agreed not to set any enforcement mechanisms of this agreement,  but they would at the minimum be expected to go beyond earlier set targets.  This stance was adopted after it was found impossible to ensure compliance  under the Kyoto Protocol (Gupta, 2014).  The concerns about this Agreement are that the current pledges by countries are not going to meet the required quota to meet the global target. Countries are not yet effecting policies to ensure carbon dioxide reduction emissions. The lack of an enforcement mechanism means nothing can be done to anyone who fails to implement policies of engage in activities that are geared towards environmental protection. The agreement was just a promise by the heads of state with no legal binding effect. No sanctions such as carbon tax can be imposed on one for failure of compliance (Park, 2016).   Private investors are to take up the  role of meeting the Sustainable Development Goal No.13 on ensuring action  concerning climate change and its impact (Goal 13 .:. Sustainable  Development Knowledge Platform, 2017). This involves low carbon ventures  and clean technology. The governmentââ¬â¢s role in this instance would be limited,  and hopefully, the conditions in the business environments in the countries  would be conducive.   The existing trade agreements are of  two kinds: Regional Trade Agreements (RTA) and Preferential Trade Agreements  (PTA). The RTAs are reciprocal agreements between partners. They include  customs unions, free trade agreements, etc. PTAs are unilateral preferences  that mean the developed countries are given preferential tariffs on their  imports from the LCDs and other non-reciprocal preferential systems. The most  significant area of conflict between the rules in these trade agreements and  climate change is the status of border tax adjustment within WTOââ¬â¢s General  Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT). At the moment there is no carbon pricing  to enable meeting of the objectives of climate change under UNFCCC principles  (Park, 2016).   Strategies to combat climate change  suggested by partners are many and varied such as: (1) imposing carbon tax or  border tax adjustment. These tax caps are to offset any adverse effects of  capping carbon dioxide releases into countries that are not executing the Kyoto  protocol. (2) Increased reliance on renewable energies thereby reducing  pollution and emission of gases into the atmosphere; and offering inducements  for energy efficiency and preservation; (3) lowered subsidies for fossil fuels;  and (4) transnational transmissions, so developing countries shun burning coal  (Park, 2016).   Effects of Climate Change on  Business   Rapid climate adjustment threatens  the global economy not so much for the current generation but for future  generations. Under the earlier discussed treaties, countries are expected to  meet their targets through national intervention. Their efforts are monitored  and recorded in the International Transaction Log by the United Nations (UN)  Climate Change Secretariat to ensure compliance with the protocol. The Kyoto  Protocol presented 3 market-based instruments to realize the targets by members  (Mechanisms under the Kyoto Protocol). These instruments would motivate  sustainable growth through skill transfer and investment; remove carbon in an  affordable manner and inspire the privately owned businesses and  unindustrialized nations to support the decline struggle. These mechanisms  included Clean Development Mechanism (CDM); Joint Implementation (JI), and  Emissions Trading (ET) (Goal 13 .:. Sustainable Development Knowledge  Platform, 2017).  A recent study by James Hansen and  other co-authors indicated that the glaciers in Greenland and Antarctica could  be melting faster than had earlier been predicted. This would mean that within  50 years, the sea levels would rise by 10ââ¬â20 feet (2015). This means that  coastal cities and countries such as New York, Haiti, etc. would suffer  tremendously. This is just a simple example of what climate change can do to a  country. This is the reason why in 2015, the Conference of Parties (COP21) met  in France to discuss International Trade in the face of climate change. The  expectation was that these partners would nurture development, create  businesses and improvement progress. Developing countries that still rely on  the natural habitat for their existence are being affected by global warming,  therefore, perpetuating more poverty. This leaves them impoverished since they  will not produce any resources to engage in trade.à   For example, in Africa, tourism is the main  source of income for the countries with tourists visiting from all over the  world to see wild animals in their natural habitat. Due to the effects of  climate change, there are wildfires and drought that ravage them killing the  animals discouraging sightseers. The down at the African Coast of Indian Ocean,  the fish stock has gone down due to overfishing and the fact that the sea  temperatures have increased, it is no longer possible to support the once  attractive marine life (Reiter, 2015).   Most of the African nations rely on  agriculture for cash crops. This is slowly changing, as there has been a  massive loss of biodiversity experienced. Not only will these countries find it  difficult to feed their people, they will have nothing to trade with in  exchange for the good and services they lack. For instance, the Tanzanian coast  which is a central port for trade within the East African community is expected  to rise by 70 centimeters by 2070. This would mean the government revenue will  be affected and so will service delivery to the people.   Reconciling the WTO with  Carbon-Reduction Treaties   In 2010, parties to the Multilateral  Conventions (WTO, UNFCCC) were unable to reach consensus on reduction of  emissions of heat-trapping gases at the Copenhagen climate conference and at  the WTO Doha Round in 2001 since they involved complex issues. The issue of  cross-linking concessions did not make the discussion easier. There are those  scholars who believe that climate change is brought about by countries failing  to observe the environmental cost of production, therefore, the society bears  the brunt of these actions. There exists monopolies appear as a result of the  absence of intervention or if they do not provide a conducive business  environment. At the international level, however, market failure leads to a  dysfunctioning world economy.   As a result of the failure of the  Doha and Copenhagen meetings, the U.S and the European Union blamed China and  India whom they say are the main emitters of CO2 for failing to commit to the  reduction of the emissions under UNFCC (Hermwille, 2018). 3 Policy proposals  were fronted as follows:  BTAFU: BorderTax Adjustment based on Foreign Unrestricted Carbon Content BTADU: Border Tax Adjustment based on Domestic Unrestricted Carbon Content BTADE: Scenario Efficient Border Tax Adjustment  A tax on Carbon would guarantee  efficacy between producers from countries with high carbon taxes when compared  to with no carbon dioxide emission (Hermwille, 2018).  Other trade policy options would include the use of domestic and export subsidies to give national companies an upper hand over international companies. Subsidizing could lead to obligations and subsequently protracted proceedings through the WTO disagreement settlement procedures. If the governments then agree on rights and duties, countries with CO2 reduction policies and existing trade measures may be tempted to reaction as a result of imagined unfair price advantage from countries with policies on carbon reduction (Hermwille, 2018).   There exist general exceptions  provisions within WTO rules and agreement, which would ordinarily be considered  inconsistent with mainstream obligations, which allow trade restrictions of  trade to protect, e.g., animals, plants or health to safeguard finite natural  resources. These processes can be implemented in a general manner avoiding  tedious litigation (Hermwille, 2018).  The parties could use the  Trade-Related Investment Measures Agreement (TRIMS) as a discussed and  resuscitated idea. There was a list of export limitations, trade balancing  requirements and home-grown/ local content requirement. TRIMS were a handy  trade agreements permitting under developed countries to safeguard their  industries. It could be used to now protect industries which committed to  reduction of CO2 and dubbed Green Trims ++ (Hermwille, 2018).  TRIPS (Trade-Related Aspects of  Intellectual Property Rights) have exceptions which could be used to help the  least developed countries to advance. Technology from developed countries that  aid in carbon reduction could be acquired through the ââ¬Å"compulsory licensingâ⬠  clause making it easier for these countries (LDCs). TRIPS could be widened to  include TRIPS++ (Hermwille, 2018).  The other solution would be by using  the Plurilateral agreements to combine three different sectors as follows:à   a) energy (goods and services), b)  environment (goods and services) and c) trade (Preferential Trade Agreements)  and development (Aid-for-Trade, Enhanced Integrated Framework, TRTAs). This  would enable the countries to align their trade and development interests to a  green objective (Hermwille, 2018).  The WTOââ¬â¢s Agreement on Subsidies and  Countervailing Measures (SCM Agreement) may be applied to combat the excessive  fossil fuel subsidies. This Agreement has general restrictions have previously  not been effective in limiting fossil fuel subsidies since it has been seen as  an expensive endeavor (Hermwille, 2018).   Plausible Solutions to Climate  Changes at National and International levels  To end these problems, there has to  be a concerted effort, especially by all actors both in developed and  developing countries. Trade alterations, trade inducements or subsidizations  that encourage wasteful and unsanctionable trade and industry activities must  cease to exist. The predisposition to create new hurdles touching on  renewables, comprising biofuels, needs to be addressed at the local and  international level. Have strict requirements concerning the burden of trade measures,  which tend to work against sustainable development goals. Doing away with  fossil fuel subsidies such as tax breaks, loans, cheap land, etc. that encourages  big corporations to deplete the non-renewable energy sources as opposed to  investing in alternative energy sources.à      Carbon emissions have increasingly  gotten out of hand with the fossil fuels burning such as gas, oil or coal.  Carbon dioxide is released into the air when these fuels are being produced. It  should thereafter be re-absorbed by plants and animals, but it is too much in  the atmosphere making the global temperatures rise. This is global warming.  These players need to be incentivized to reduce carbon emissions. Trade and  investments are important in making a difference in markets and spreading them.  If the players could be allowed to engage in an open trading system, with  agreed rules, the producers of fossil energy would increase on efficacy and  reduce wastage.  As shown in the below, low carbon  investment may possibly be attained at domestic echelons through state  intervention, industry players, civil societies, private sector etc.   (International governance options to strengthen WTO and UNFCCC1, 2011) Source: (Saner, 2011)   At the international level,  International production organizations should go green. This should be felt at  all levels of production and putting in place a verifiable process to ensure  strict compliance of the final outcome or process. Multilateral agreements and  covenants such as Multilateral Environmental Agreements (MEAs) have attempted  to achieve this but with little success.   Financial markets both local and  international could be rewarded for investing in climate adaptation and  mitigation. They could be compelled to have an environmental and social  governance performance report. This will push them to perform in a more  responsible way.   Tariffs on environmental  technologies should be abolished to encourage innovation of environmentally  friendly technologies accessible to many. Wind turbines, solar panels are some  of the examples that come to mind that would help developing countries. The  Montreal protocol is viewed as one of the most successful multilateral  environmental agreements ever. It has received funding from UNDP, UNEP, and the  World Bank and spent this money through environmental conservation programs.   The Clean Technology Fund is guided  by UNFCC principles and finances clean technology transfers, which was to be  used for financing technology transfers. These are all good actions by the  World Bank, but this has not stopped them from also funding carbon-demanding  projects in line with their normal procedures. These funds are in the form of  loans so they will eventually have to be paid off at a steep cost especially to  the developing countries. This cannot, therefore, be said to be a self-actualization  of the Kyoto commitments.   Conclusion  To reconcile trade rules and climate  policies would require the effort of all global partners including the Least  Developed Countries. Governments must take it upon themselves to implement the  proposals stated herein and other dictates in the WTO agreements. Bearing in  mind that WTO is no longer an efficient negotiating partner, countries should  engage in regional, bilateral or Plurilateral agreements that support their  policies on climate change but at the same time do not stifle international  change. A balance can be found where positive climate provisions could find  their way in trade policies and vice versa.  References  Edouard, L., & Bernstein, S.  (2016). Challenges for Measuring Progress towards the Sustainable Development  Goals.à  African Journal Of  Reproductive Health,à  20(3),  45-54. http://dx.doi.org/10.29063/ajrh2016/v20i3.9  Goal 13 .:. Sustainable Development  Knowledge Platform. (2017).à  Sustainabledevelopment.un.org.  Retrieved 22 April 2018, from https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/sdg13  Gupta, A. (2014). Clean development  mechanism of Kyoto Protocol.à  International  Journal Of Climate Change Strategies And Management,à  6(2), 116-130.  http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/ijccsm-09-2012-0051  Hermwille, L. (2018). Making  initiatives resonate: how can non-state initiatives advance national  contributions under the UNFCCC?.à  International  Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law And Economics. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10784-018-9398-9  Park, D. (2016).à  Legal issues on climate change and  international trade law. Springer.  Raes, F., Liao, H., Chen, W., &  Seinfeld, J. (2010). Atmospheric chemistry-climate feedbacks.à  Journal Of Geophysical Research,à  115(D12).  http://dx.doi.org/10.1029/2009jd013300  Reiter, J. (2015).à  What does climate change mean for  the future of trade?.à  World  Economic Forum. Retrieved 22 April 2018, from  https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2015/12/what-does-climate-change-mean-for-the-future-of-trade/  Saner, R. (2011).à  International governance options to  strengthen WTO and UNFCCC. Retrieved from  http://www.diplomacydialogue.org/images/files/20110611-International%20governance%20options%20to%20strengthen%20WTO%20and%20UNFCCC.pdf    
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.