Fixing the tensions spawned by nations' conflicting global trade and environmental policies may first involve fixing the international organizations that oversee these areas, according to a U.S.-Japan study group that has been exploring new ways to make nations' economic and ecological policies more consistent.
The two research institutions involved in the project -- the Global Environment & Trade Study (GETS) at Yale and the Global Industrial and Social Progress Research Institute (GISPRI) in Tokyo -- made several recommendations on ways international organizations could better manage environmental issues at a meeting in June in New York City. Among the participants in the discussion were Steve Charnovitz, GETS director, and Daniel Esty, director of the Yale Center for International Law and Policy, which is part of GETS.
While conceding that some trade and environmental policies are flawed, the study group said that tensions over these policies can also be traced to problems with the goals and structures of international environmental organizations. Its members made the following recommendations:
-- The World Trade Organization's (WTO) Committee on Trade and Environment needs a more focused mandate, increased environmental participation and further analytical input. "The WTO committee's focus should be on areas in which agreements benefit both developed and developing countries, such as increased market access and elimination of inefficient subsidies," Mr. Charnovitz said. "The committee's membership should be expanded to include national and international environmental officials as well as representatives from nonprofit environmental groups."
-- The Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperative forum (APEC) needs new structures and procedures if it is going to play an important role in ensuring that environmental issues are addressed in the context of Asia-Pacific trade and investment liberalization.
-- Policymakers should give serious attention to proposals calling for the creation of a worldwide environmental policy organization that would operate in parallel with the WTO. Creating such an organization -- which Professor Esty suggested calling the Global Environmental Organization (GE0) -- could help policymakers successfully navigate between the twin hazards of "blind environmentalism and narrowly focused trade liberalization," says the Yale researcher, who is affiliated with both the School of Forestry and Environmental Studies and the Law School.
-- Both APEC and the WTO should develop better analyses of subsidies for agriculture, fishing, energy and forestry industries, because such subsidies frequently distort the market and damage the environment without providing any clear economic benefits; create better mechanisms for mediating environmental disputes between nations; encourage more research into the linkage between trade and the environment; recognize the value of input from business and environmental groups; and move toward effective and efficient reduction of greenhouse gases.