hipc debt relief
RESOLVING A PARADOX: CAN REGIONALISM HELP TO PROMOTE A GLOBAL APPROACH TO CLIMATE CHANGE?
EVIDENCE FROM THE EU-MERCORSUR INTERREGIONAL FRAMEWORK CO-OPERATION AGREEMENT
CEPS Working Paper, May 2004
Enrica De Cian1
ABSTRACT
Can regional trade promote a solution to a global environmental problem such as climate change more easily than the multilateral WTO is likely to do? So far the relationship between global free trade and global environmental threats has been mainly investigated at the multilateral level. However, progresses towards global agreements have slowed down and at the same time regional initiatives have emerged at an increasing pace. Therefore the study of the trade-environment interface needs to take into account the shift from the global to the regional perspective because it might be more realistic to aim for trade and climate global cooperation in a sequence of regional steps rather than in one large multilateral step. The focus will be on the new regionalism: dealing progressively more with non-tariff measures, it might cover domestic regulations and trade-related environmental measures in a more comprehensive way. This point will be exemplified by the EU-Mercorsur Interregional Framework Co-operation Agreement.
Table of contents
Table of contents 2
1.Introduction 3
2. Trade and Environmental Global Issues: switching from a global to a regional perspective 4
2.1 Trade and the environment 4
2.2 Trade and climate change 5
2.3 The sub-global approach to global issues: a paradox? 6
3. Regional trade, environment and climate change 7
3.1 Regionalism: traditional welfare effects and their implications for the environment 7
3.2 The ‘new regionalism’ 9
3.3 RTAs and the environment 10
3.3.1 Empirical Evidence 10
3.3.2 Different regional approaches 11
3.3.3 Internal versus external effects 12
3.4 RTAs and Climate Change 12
4. Case study: the EU-Mercorsur Interregional Framework Co-operation agreement 13
4.1
EVIDENCE FROM THE EU-MERCORSUR INTERREGIONAL FRAMEWORK CO-OPERATION AGREEMENT
CEPS Working Paper, May 2004
Enrica De Cian1
ABSTRACT
Can regional trade promote a solution to a global environmental problem such as climate change more easily than the multilateral WTO is likely to do? So far the relationship between global free trade and global environmental threats has been mainly investigated at the multilateral level. However, progresses towards global agreements have slowed down and at the same time regional initiatives have emerged at an increasing pace. Therefore the study of the trade-environment interface needs to take into account the shift from the global to the regional perspective because it might be more realistic to aim for trade and climate global cooperation in a sequence of regional steps rather than in one large multilateral step. The focus will be on the new regionalism: dealing progressively more with non-tariff measures, it might cover domestic regulations and trade-related environmental measures in a more comprehensive way. This point will be exemplified by the EU-Mercorsur Interregional Framework Co-operation Agreement.
Table of contents
Table of contents 2
1.Introduction 3
2. Trade and Environmental Global Issues: switching from a global to a regional perspective 4
2.1 Trade and the environment 4
2.2 Trade and climate change 5
2.3 The sub-global approach to global issues: a paradox? 6
3. Regional trade, environment and climate change 7
3.1 Regionalism: traditional welfare effects and their implications for the environment 7
3.2 The ‘new regionalism’ 9
3.3 RTAs and the environment 10
3.3.1 Empirical Evidence 10
3.3.2 Different regional approaches 11
3.3.3 Internal versus external effects 12
3.4 RTAs and Climate Change 12
4. Case study: the EU-Mercorsur Interregional Framework Co-operation agreement 13
4.1
References: Assuncao, L. (1999). Trade Rules and Climate Change Policy : Some Issues of Synergy and Conflict, International Centre for Trade and Sustainable Development, Geneva. Boas, M., (1999). “The Trade-Environment Nexus and the Potential of Regional Trade Institutions”. Prepared for the CSGR 3rd Annual Conference After the Global Crises: What Next for Regionalism. University of Warwick, 16-18 September. Brack, D., (2000). International Trade and Climate Change Policy, London, The Royal Institute of International Affairs, RIIA. Buch, Matthias e Roda Verheyen, (2001). “International Trade Law and Climate Change. A Positive Way Forward”. Bonn, Stabsabteilung Der Friedrich - Ebert - Stiftung. Carraro C. And D. Siniscalco, (1998). “International Environmental Agreements: Incentives and Political Economy’’, European Economic Review 42, pp.561-572. Charnovitz, S. (2003). “Trade and Climate. Potential Conlficts and Synergies“ in Beyond Kyoto - Advancing the International Effort Against Climate Change, Aldy, J.E., Ashton J., Baron, R. Et al, PEW Centre on Global Climate Change. Esty, D. (2001). “Bridging the Trade-Environment Divide”, Journal of Economics Perspectives, vol.15, pp.113-130. European Commission, (1998) European Commission, (2004). Bilateral trade relations. EU-Mercorsur. Relations and negotiations. European Commission, (2004a). Environment and trade and external relations. Faust, J. (2002). “The European Union’s trade policy towards Mercorsur”. Working Paper PEIF-7, Institut fur Politikwissenschaft, Johannes Gutenberg-Universitat Mainz. Galeotti, M. and C. Kemfert, (2003). “Interactions Between Climate and Trade Policies: A Survey” in Climate Change Policy, International Trade and Economic Growth, Milan, Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei. Grossman G.M, and A.B. Krueger, (1991). “Environmental Impacts of a North American Free Trade Agreement” NBER Working Paper Series No.3914, Cambridge Hoekman M.B Kemfert C., (2003). “Costs and Benefits of Climate-Related Trade Policies” in Climate Change Policy, International Trade and Economic Growth, Milan, Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei. Kemfert C. (2003a). “Linking Trade and Environmental Negotiations” in Climate Change Policy, International Trade and Economic Growth, Milano, Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei. Kemfert C., (2003b). International Trade and Climate Policy – a Win Win strategy? Milan, Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei. Kemfert C. and B. Buchner, (2003). “Trade and Climate Blocs” in Climate Change Policy, International Trade and Economic Growth, Milan, Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei. IPCC, 2001. Summary for Policymakers. A Report of Working Group I of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. OECD, (2003). Regionalism and Multilateral Trading system, OECD Books, Paris. Onestini, M. (1999). “The Latin America Southern Common Market (MERCORSUR): Environment and Regionalisation”. Prepared for the CSGR 3rd Annual Conference After the Global Crises: What Next for Regionalism? University of Warwick, 16-18 September. Panayotou, T. (2000). Globalization and Environment. CID Working Paper No. 53, Environmental and Development Paper No. 1. Sampson, G. P., (1999). Trade, Environment and the WTO: a Framework for Moving Forward, Overseas Development Council. Sampson, G. (2003). “WTO Rules and Climate Change: the Need for Policy Coherence” in Global Climate Governance: Inter-linkages between the Kyoto Protocol and other Multilateral Regimes, Tokyo, United Nations University. Sampson, G. and S. Woolcock, (2003). Regionalism, Multilateralism, and Economic Integration. The Recent Experience, Tokyo, the United Nations University Press. Tractado de Asuncion, (1991) United Nations Environmental Program (UNEP), (2000) UNFCCC, (2003). Caring for Climate – A Guide to the Climate Change Convention and to the Kyoto Protocol. Urata, Shujiro, (2002). “Globalization and Growth in Free Trade Agreements”, Asia- Pacific Review, Vol. 9, No. 1. Zhang, ZhongXiang, (1998). “Greenhouse Gas Trading and the World Trading System”, Journal of World Trade, vol. 32, n.5, pp.219-239. Zhang, ZhongXiang and L