Have the policy tensions between free trade and environmental protection been adequately resolved - Essay Example

?Have the policy tensions between free trade and environmental protection been adequately resolved? Number Department Grade Course Tutor’s Name 2nd December, 2011 Have the policy tensions between free trade and environmental protection been adequately resolved? Introduction Free trade and environmental protection are two issues, which have been, running parallel to each other throughout the years. The issues were first raised in the 1920s and continue to be significant impediments to international trade development. A lot of policies have been put in place over all those years in the effort of creating a tension free situation between the policy makers. These issues arise as a result of policies implemented regarding each of the two aspects. This paper takes a look on the existing tensions, and issues of contravention between free trade and environment protection. There has been a debate on which of the two aspects should come before the other1. Governments from different countries have set up policies regarding both aspects. Majority of the government policies have been placed to protect the environment as free trade has been left to the international organizations. Though they are put to protect the environment, these policies continue to be a cause of tension between international free trade and the environment protection. This paper also takes a look at how these tensions have been resolved in numerous occasions in which they appeared. The bodies that have been established to deal with the issues arising have been analyzed, and their approaches noted. Free trade among different nation continues to be hampered by the efforts of environmentalists to protect the environment. These protection efforts continue to mitigate the growth of free trade especially at the international level. Over the past years, environmental policies have been set up to try and control the impact of free trade on the environment2. There has been a proposal by some environmentalists to create “world environmental organization” to help coordinate international policies concerning the environment. Many environmentalists continue to push for the establishment of such an organization3. This has been a source of the many conflict in existence between international free trade and environment protection policies. Conferences have been held around the world to try and resolve these issues. Numerous policies have been implemented with the aim of resolving the persistent conflicts between the two global issues. An adequate resolution of the two elements would be beneficial to the world in attaining global sustainable development.4 The policies that need implementation should balance these aspects especially in underdeveloped and developing nations. For these nations to achieve impressive industrialization levels in the next decade, the tensions between these two aspects need to be resolved adequately. The existing issues There exist different trades which have a direct impact on the environment. The sale of animal products, like ivory, has had a considerable impact on wild life in many African countries. The sale of these products is encouraged by the free trade, provided by the international trade regulations. There has been a growing need to protect animal which provide ivory from poaching. The population of rhinos and elephants continues to decline as the years go by. Laws have been passed in many countries banning the sale of ivory. Early in the 1990s, Kenya imposed a ban on ivory trade within her territory. Majority of the ivory illegally acquired in Africa found its way in Asian market through the provisions of free trade5. In many Asian countries, ivory is used in the manufacture of local medicine. The growing trade, which existed, between the African countries and their Asian counterparts was significantly hampered by the regulation. A public auction was done for ivory which had been seized in Asia. The collection gained from the auction was distributed among the countries where the ivory was thought to have originated6. This was a measure aimed at mitigating the poaching of elephants. This auction, however, led to an increase in the demand for ivory and more elephants were killed the following year in the Tsavo National Park, in Kenya7. This event failed to achieve the aim for which it targeted. Environmental Policies formulated in the aim of curbing poaching included a shoot to kill order of poachers by the government of Kenya. This policy brought about many human rights elements with it. It made the protection of the animals more valuable than the lives of people. This policy did not help to curb the problem as it raised other concern issues among different interest groups. Concerns were raised for the poachers arrested to be handed a trial. There were many other issues which came about following the shoot to kill order. Human rights activists rose to object the order and the issue was shifted from being an environment protection issue to a human rights one. A solution was, thereby, not achieved in the control of the illegal ivory trade. When ivory was burnt in 1989 by the Kenyan government, the message was sent to the international community that trading of ivory was illegal. This trade was officially made illegal by the UN’s Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES)8. This treaty allows for the destruction of any seized amounts of ivory as they contain no legal commercial value. The illegal trade still thrives as there still is a market for the products secretly. A kilo of ivory has been estimated to cost $1500 in the black market9. Pollution has been a bone of contention between international trade and environmental protection. Manufacturing forms part of the trade as goods have to be manufactured. In the manufacturing process, however, a lot of environmental pollution is realized as a result of emissions and the wastes produced. Environmental policies, however, require manufacturers to exhibit low carbon emissions so as to become environment friendly compliant. Laws concerning carbon emissions have been enacted in many countries with the aim of controlling the effects of pollution on the environment. These laws, however, need to show a balance of economic development and the desired level of environmental sustainability. Governments assess the importance of the environment in comparison to industrialization. The policies implemented should also consider the relationship between the two elements and try to create a balance in both. The pollution caused by wastes produced in factories has also driven many governments into imposing waste management regulation10. As a result of these rules, many companies have integrated recycling in their system. The laws of environmental protection concerning pollution have made manufacturing costs go up. The United Nations has had a hand in trying to come up with amicable solution aimed at preventing the levels of pollution from escalating. It has held several conventions on climate change to address the issue with the most renown, being the Kyoto protocol on climate change. Though it was formulated with the aim of reducing green house gas effects on climate change, the Kyoto protocol has been faulted as just a literature lacking practical implementation program. 11 The protocol does not impose any mandatory law for members of the United Nations to sign it. This has led to counties which see the protocol as a hindrance to international trade not signing it. Countries producing high levels of the gases specified in the protocol were adamant to sign the treaty. They have continued to emit these gases as they are not bound by any condition specified in the treaty.12 This has had immense effects on the global warming the protocol was supposed to reduce and control. Trade liberalization has been identified as a possible way through different nations can be able to standardize their environmental policies. While trade has an international governing body, environment does not have. There are different aspects of environmental degradation stated by different nations. The developing world, for example, puts more emphasis on the need to achieve industrialization as opposed to maintaining high environmental standards. As a result of lower environmental standards in the developing nations, it is not possible for trade to be carried out between a developed and developing nation. Goods manufactured in developing nations are considered not to be up to the desired environmental standards of the developed nations. This has led to developing nations conducting international trade amongst themselves13. The regulations to standardize environmental policies regarding free trade have been lacking at the global arena. This has immensely affected the way that trade is carried out between nations with different environmental policies. Free trade has been negatively affected by lack of standard ways to regulate environment protection policies. Political issues have been cited as a cause of some discriminatory policies being adopted to lock out certain nations or companies out of trade14. The World Trade Organization is an international trade organization founded on the need to reduce discriminatory practices in international trade. Those in support of its formation thought this as a way towards solving the tensions between free trade and environment protection. This noble course, however, was not achieved by the formation of the WTO. It has been faulted by environmentalists as a source of conflict between free trade and environmental protection. Though it has a dispute resolution panel which handles trade matters, the ability of this panel to handle trade issues concerning environment has been a point of criticism for the organization. In one matter concerning imports of tuna fish to the US environmentalists seriously cried foul over how the panel conducted the issue. The United States of America had banned imports of Tuna fish from countries which did not conform to the standards set by the US, concerning the deaths caused on dolphins as a result of tuna fishing activities15. The US formulated a “dolphin Free” policy to ensure that tuna was bought only from fishermen who caught tuna with minimal levels of dolphin deaths occurring in the process. The panel ruled that the US had no right to impose trade sanctions on the fish products based on a policy not accepted by the WTO16. Environmentalists argued that, by allowing the trade to go on, the WTO was allowing dolphins to be slaughtered in order to suffice trade between the countries. The environmentalists wanted the US policy to be accepted as an international treaty concerning trade. This issue led to the conclusion by environmentalists that, the dispute resolution panel lacked the capability to implement sustainable environmental policies governing trade at the international level. While the supporters of the WTO found this reasonable in relation to international trade, environmentalist concluded that the dispute resolution panel undermined international treaties on the environment17. Among other treaties quoted in the case was CITES. The environmentalists argued that, this trend by the WTO, would also infringe into other treaties for protection of the environment in the future. This has been an issue of concern for the environmentalists regarding the WTO policy on the environment. What the environmentalists failed to consider was that the world trade organization judged the issue in relation to the free trade policies which are mandated for it to control. Though the WTO handles trade matters relating to environmental protection, the core business of the WTO still remains protecting nations from discriminatory policies implemented by other nations. The solutions There has been much effort around the world trying to settle the matters arising from disputes between free trade and environmental protection. The efforts to seek a solution to these pertinent issues can be termed as what led to the formation of the WTO in 1994. Initially, these regulations were governed by the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) laid down in 1949. The regulations set out by the GATT had not considered the environmental impacts which free trade would bring along. This led to the numerous modifications of the regulations since they were first drafted. The last of these was done in 1994 in Uruguay. The modification of the GATT regulations in 1994, aimed at creating substantial agricultural trade. These negotiations are what led to the creating of the World Trade Organization in the same year. The WTO acted as a replacement for the GATT which had been regulating free trade since its inception. The regulations provided by the GATT, though, were maintained in sub articles of the WTO. The new organization was mandated to carry out all the duties previously carried out by the GATT. All the provisions set out in the previous rounds of modification were maintained within the WTO framework. This gave the organization a starting point towards creating trade policies which are compliant with environment policies Those in favor of international trade found that there were many environmental regulations restrictive to free trade between countries. This led to the creation of an international organization (WTO) which sought to create some form of regulation on the trading zone. The WTO was formed with the aim of providing guidance in the international trade. The element of environmental protection was not at the top of priorities at the time. This issue has brought about a lot of controversies in the environmental protection front. Environmentalists continue to fault the world trade organization for failing to make environmental protection a priority when making trade policies. The organization, however, continues to play its role in the negotiation towards achieving an amicable solution for tensions between free trade and environmental protection. The world trade organization has been immensely criticized by environmentalists for the role it plays in international trade regarding the environment. While it seeks to govern and protect international trade, at times there has been an eruption of conflict between the WTO and various environmental organizations. Like in the Tuna fish case of the US, a lot of criticism was raised upon the WTO. This criticism does not help to resolve the tensions that exist between international trade and environment protection. The WTO was created with an aim of creating a balance between these two elements of global interest. The main function of the organization lies in the protection of international trade treaties. It also ensures that countries do not impose discriminatory policies upon other18. These discriminatory policies can be of any nature, including environmental policies. The WTO concerns itself with regulating policies affecting international trade. This is done irrespective of the nature of the policy. Like in the tuna fish case, the WTO acted within its mandate to protect countries from policies which affect international trade in a negative manner. It has however continued to ignore the call for integrating environment protection into the trade policies. The WTO has continued to be a source of conflict more than a solution as previously intended. It was expected that through its creation an amicable balance could be created between the free trade and environmental protection. However, this has not been the case. The organization has been faulted, numerously, for being insensitive to the protection of the environment. Like in the tuna fish case discussed earlier, after delivering the verdict, environmentalists debated a lot about the capacity of the organization to handle environment issues relating to international trade. Product standards have been applied across the globe to help deal with control of imported goods and ratify their standards. However, there are different standards set by each country concerning imported goods especially edible items. There are numerous policies concerning the environment, and safety of the consumers which apply to imported goods19. These policies have shown adverse negative effects on international trade. Each country sets its own environmental standards which normally apply to all goods consumed in the country. This normally occurs without any consideration on the imported goods of the same nature. Production standards may differ from country to country, and this may lead to rejection of goods produced in a country where environmental protection is not an issue of concern. In a case concerning hormone treated beef within the European Union, the standard was that this process could not be applied within the European Union. The trade of importing hormone treated beef from the United States of America was banned in the European Union as a way of conforming to the set standards. This ban seemed to affect international trade between the US and European countries negatively. Though it is essential for imported goods to conform to the standards of their destination, the process of manufacturing should not come as a factor in trade. The manufacturing process should be an essential factor to the country where the manufacturing takes place. The issue of the manufacturing process should be raised only if there may be harmful elements in the product. Translations of the existing laws governing import and export has brought a lot of controversies. In the above case, the laws which were to prevail in settling the matter could not be determined. The United States applied its own law while the European Union also did the same. The United States of America appealed to the WTO with the aim of having an interpretation of the reasons for the ban provided. The interpretation concluded that the European Union was providing an unnecessary barrier to international trade by imposing the ban. 20 Though the meat was safe for consumption, the EU was concerned for the safety of its citizens. The policy had been in place before the imports started coming into the European market. The United States on its part considered the move as aimed at promoting the producers of beef products within the Euro Zone. The EU failed to lift the ban implying that what ever came into the European Union had to comply with all set regulations concerning safety and environment. This created a conflict in which environmental policies came before the international trade agreements. The international trade agreement requires that, any regulations set by a nation should not contradict the existing international trade policies21. The conflict in this case and the issues that followed indicate a controversy between free trade and environmental protection. The solution to such issues arising from time to time is yet to be found. Efforts were made to determine the extend to which environmental protection policies could be applied. The sovereignty of the government policies regarding environment has however been put before the international trade agreements22. The national environmental policies in this case were considered before those put by the international treaty agreements. The free trade has made it possible for industries to locate in several places which they would not. Globalization of trade has driven many organizations into constructing manufacturing plants in different nations. This has immensely increased the rate of industrialization. The effect that this industrialization has had on the environment is however not considered23. The aim of this relocation normally is to achieve industrialization. During the manufacturing process, a lot of waste and carbon emissions are produced by factories24. These products have been known to have adverse effects when released to the environment. The Kyoto protocol highlighted the gases which were causing great concern among environmentalists. The industrial gases which the protocol aimed at reducing were carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, and sulphur hexafluoride. While some countries have extremely strict regulations on the levels of emission a factory can emit, others have laxer rules concerning the same. There has been a growing tendency for companies to build factories in the countries which have laxer environmental protection policies25. As a result of this relocation, many companies end up producing more polluting elements than if they did not. Free trade which allows these companies to relocate has always been faulted by environmentalists as the cause of this pollution26. Environmentalists push for the adoption of environment protection policies which would ensure that, while companies relocate, they observe a certain level of environmental protection. This level has to be agreed upon by both the environmentalists and the trading organization. Since the environmental factors seem to slow down the rate at which companies can expand, the trade organizations have never considered adopting these environmental policies. The environmental policies have been termed as barriers to free trade. The Kyoto protocol was agreed upon by many countries within the United Nations in 1997 at a convention in Kyoto, Japan27. Countries who became signatories to the protocol were required to reduce emission of green house gases. This was an effort aimed at reducing the effects of global warming caused by green house gases. These gases are mainly emitted from industries. When it was first passed, several developed countries were adamant to signing the protocol. The developed countries thought this would have adverse effects on their industrial activities. Only 37 counties were signatories to the treat in 1997. Increasing pressure from international trade barriers imposed on non-members has, however, driven many countries into signing the treaty. Many countries have adopted the provisions of the protocol and as of May 2011, among the developed nations, only the US had not signed the protocol.28 Though this protocol provides guidelines on the specific gases which should be reduced, it has not adequately addressed the issue of international free trade in relation to controlling the climate change. It can be termed as one which has been widely accepted by countries voluntarily. There is still hope that all the nations in the world will sign the protocol. Pollution has produced adverse effects on the global climate. Environmentalists have continued to associate the effects of global warming on ozone layer depletion caused by industrial emissions29. Laws have been imposed by governments to control the amount of emission which a plant can emit to the environment. These regulations, however, vary from country to another. Issues have been raised concerning the level of pollution each country contributes to the global warming. Developed nations have the highest figures owing to there being many industries in those nations. Several conventions have been held with the aim of establishing methods of dealing with the global warming effect caused by carbon emissions. Countries which have the highest level of emissions into the ozone are supposed to pay a set amount of money to go towards the climate change program. This has been passed upon realization that, the nations with least level of emissions are the worst affected by the effects of the climate change. Many proposals have been made concerning ways of reducing carbon emissions by manufacturers. The adoption of sustainable energy sources has been in the fore front of the campaign. Conclusion The tensions between free trade and environmental protection still exist to a great extend30. Though numerous efforts have been made to try and solve these tensions, they have not been good enough. Most of the solutions provided have created extra problems in other aspects of globalization. The result of the proposed solutions has been arising of other issues. The resolution of these tensions does not lie in the existing organizations which have been put in place to regulate the two global elements. The concerns of the elements always seem to be contrary to each other. While the World Trade organization sees many of the environmental policies as hindrances to free trade31, environmentalists are always concerned about the effects of the free trade activities on the environment. Bibliography Anderson, kym, and Richard Blackhurst, (1992) The Greening of World Trade Issues. Michigan University Press Barbier, E. B. (1997). “Introduction to the Special Issue on Environmental Kuznets Curves,” Environment and Development Economics 2, no. 4: 369–81. Begley, Sharon. (2008).“Extinction Trade: Endangered Animals are the New Blood Diamonds as militias and warlords use poaching to fund death.” Newsweek 10 March 2008. http://www.newsweek.com/id/117875. Boyle, A.E. (2005). ‘Globalising environmental liability: the interplay of national and international law’ J. Env. L. 17(1), 3-26. Brink Lindsey, Mark A. Groombridge, and Prakash Loungani, (2006) “Nailing the Homeowner: The Economic Impact of Trade Protection of the Softwood Lumber Industry,” CATOTrade Policy Analysis 11: 1–16. David L. Markell and John H. Knox (2003) Greening NAFTA: The North American Commission for Environmental Cooperation. Stanford University press Edwin C. Mujih, (2008)‘“Co-deregulation" of multinational companies operating in developing countries: partnering against corporate social responsibility?’ 16(2), 249-261. Esty, Daniel C. and Maria H. Ivanova. (2001). “Making International Environmental Efforts Work: The Case for a Global Environmental Organization.” New Haven: Yale Center for Environmental Law and Policy. John H. Knox, (2004) the judicial resolution of conflicts between trade and the environment: havard Environmental Law Review. Jonas Meckling, (2008)‘Corporate policy preferences in the EU and the US: emissions trading as the climate compromise?’ 2(2), 171-180. Joseph Des Jardins, (2006) Environmental Ethics: An Introduction to Environmental Philosophy, 4th ed. (Stamford Conn.: Wadsworth Publishing Co., , chap. 5. Leakey, Richard. (2008) “Ivory Auction a Disservice to Conservation.” WildlifeDirect: The Hard Conservation Questions Liesl Marisa Harewood, (2005) ‘The importance of the precautionary principle in international environmental law’. 10(2), 1-5. McConell, Tristan. (2011)"Is China Killing Africa's Elephants." Global Post. April 7, 2011. Mukumbira, Rodrick. “1st Legal Ivory Auction in Ten Years Yields $1,300,000.” National Geographic 28 October 2008. O’Neill, Kate. (1999)“Hazardous Waste Disposal.” International Relations Center: Foreign Policy In Focus vol. 4 no. P Birnie, A Boyle and C Redgwell, (2009). International Law and the Environment (3rd edn). Oxford University Press Panel Report: (1992) United States--Restrictions on Imports of Tuna, Aug 16, 1991 30 I.L.M. 1598 Samuelson, Paul (2001). "A Ricardo-Sraffa Paradigm Comparing the Gains from Trade in Inputs and Finished Goods". Journal of Economic Literature 39 (4): 1204– 1214. Stephen M. Gardiner, (2004) “The Global Warming Tragedy and the Dangerous Illusion of the Kyoto Protocol,” Ethics and International Affairs 18, no. 1: 23–41. Theodore Panayotou, (1993). Green Markets: The Economics of Sustainable Development (San Francisco: ICP Press, United Nations Environment Program, (2008), “Environment for Development” United nations, (1992). Basel Convention on the Control of Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes and their Disposal. Basel. Van den Bossche, Peter (2008). The Law and Policy of the World Trade Organization - Text, Cases and Materials. Maastricht University: Cambridge University Press. Werner Antweiler, Brian Copeland, and M. Scott Taylor, (1998). “Is Free Trade Good for the Environ­ment?” Department of Economics University of British Columbia Working Paper Number 98–11, Vancouver, B.C.: University of British Columbia. World Trade Organization. (1992)“Mexico etc. versus US: ‘tuna-dolphin.’” World Trade Organization Environment: Disputes Four http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/envir_e/edis04_e.htm. Read More