Environment and Trade: A HandbookUNEP/IISD   
2    International environmental management
   2.4  Multilateral environmental agreements
   2.4.4  Trade measures in MEAs
Next Section
Previous Section
Table of Contents
Subject Index
abbr

It was noted earlier that trade measures in MEAs are uncommon, occurring in roughly one-tenth of all agreements. But those that exist may have important effects on international trade flows. The trade measures found in five MEAs are described in Box 2-3.

Box 2-3: Trade measures in selected MEAs

The Basel Convention: Parties may only export a hazardous waste to another party that has not banned its import and that consents to the import in writing. Parties may not import from or export to a non-party. They are also obliged to prevent the import or export of hazardous wastes if they have reason to believe that the wastes will not be treated in an environmentally sound manner at their destination.

The Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species: CITES bans commercial international trade in an agreed list of endangered species. It also regulates and monitors (by use of permits, quotas and other restrictive measures) trade in other species that might become endangered.

The Montreal Protocol: The Protocol lists certain substances as ozone depleting, and bans all trade in those substances between parties and non-parties. Similar bans may be implemented against parties as part of the Protocol's non-compliance procedure. The Protocol also contemplates allowing import bans on products made with, but not containing, ozone-depleting substances—a ban based on process and production methods.

The Rotterdam PIC Convention: Parties can decide, from the Convention's agreed list of chemicals and pesticides, which ones they cannot manage safely and, therefore, will not import. When trade in the controlled substances does take place, labelling and information requirements must be followed. Decisions taken by the parties must be trade neutral—if a party decides not to consent to imports of a specific chemical, it must also stop domestic production of the chemical for domestic use, as well as imports from any non-party.

The Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety: Parties may restrict the import of some living genetically modified organisms as part of a carefully specified risk management procedure. Living GMOs that will be intentionally released to the environment are subject to an advance informed agreement procedure, and those destined for use as food, feed or processing must be accompanied by documents identifying them.

Why do some environmental agreements incorporate trade measures? The explanation will vary according to the circumstances of the agreement. But there are at least four reasons why trade measures are sometimes considered necessary:

  1. Regulatory frameworks. Participants in a market need to be confident that all others face comparable regulatory constraints-and that these are being implemented properly. Some constraints reflect the economic and social choices of consumers, so such constraints can be viewed as part of the normal conditions of competition. Others reflect scientifically based environmental imperatives and must be respected to avoid severe and irreversible damage, irrespective of other priorities. Sorting out which constraints are mandatory for all market participants and which can be viewed as optional is one of the major tasks facing trade and environmental communities alike.


  2. Containment. Sometimes, the practical requirements of administering environmental market disciplines impose a need to maintain certain borders. For example, imposing size limits on lobsters that are caught generally protects lobster stocks, but these limitations are enforced not on the boat but in the marketplace. In practice lobsters mature faster in warmer waters, so a smaller size limit achieves the same conservation goal. This may seem like a classic case of comparative advantage but a trade panel has ruled that the United States may exclude smaller Canadian lobsters from its market because it could not maintain an essential conservation discipline without such a ban. Similar reasoning can apply to hazardous wastes or toxic substances, both of which become increasingly difficult to control the further they are transported.


  3. Controlling markets. Some products may have high demand but meeting that demand may destroy the resources on which they are based. It can prove difficult or even impossible to ensure that the scarcity value of these products is adequately reflected in the price-and that the associated profits are distributed in a way that promotes rather than undermines conservation. Under these circumstances an international structure of market control is required. This is the logic behind CITES and plays a significant role in the CBD.


  4. Ensuring compliance. The threat of imposing limits on trade with non-parties can be an effective tool for securing greater compliance with MEAs than might otherwise be so. This was done effectively in the Montreal Protocol. Clearly, it is important to ensure that the limits are neither arbitrary nor disproportionate; that is, they cannot restrict a substantial amount of trade to address a relatively small environmental problem.




© 2000 United Nations Environment Programme,
International Institute for Sustainable Development