WTO Environmental Regulations May Not Be What They Seem

In 1947, the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade served as the basis of the first postwar global trading system. Thirty years later, GATT established a Group on Environmental Measures and International Trade (EMIT) after specialists realized a need to address sustainable development and economic growth as unique factors that heavily impacted each other. While EMIT’s goals were noble, the group did not make notable strides towards combining the ides. These groups set the state for the World Trade Organization’s formation in 1995, including a committee on Trade and Environment to study the relationship between trade and environmental issues. By combining such principles with the foundation of the entire group, the future looked bright for policies that served both the environment and the growing global economy.

Sadly, the WTO has yet to truly provide even ground for all stakeholders. Early in the WTO’s life, a streak of incidents connected by developing countries having their exports blocked by developed nations. These include the 2001 case involving the United States’ application of laws to protect sea turtles. Initially, the WTO found that the United States was not putting forward “serious good faith efforts.” Later, it was found that they were putting forwards “serious good faith efforts.” At no time was this phrase formally defined. While supporters may argue there is no one definition applicable to all scenarios, the current reasoning allows for little transparency. Did the United States truly do enough in the past? How will the public know if their governments are putting forward these supposed good faith efforts? Currently, there is no way of knowing.

Environmental legislation from the DSM is allegedly designed to prevent laws that are intended to protect domestic industries over environmental interests. The issues lies with the WTO’s knowledge and authority. Members are not ecosystem specialists, biologists, or study specialized issues that uniquely impact each operation. Rather, the WTO is comprised of trade experts who are more concerned with trade. Environmental specialists, who would be better equipped to consider long-term ecological effects from proposed legislation, could theoretically be consulted but would not have a final say in the matter. Additionally, the process is difficult for those not affiliated with the business in question or the WTO to have a say in matters. Civilians have a stake in these agreements, weather it be protecting ecosystems they care about or concern for allowing developing nations access to global markets. For them, there is no true representation or even voice within the WTO.

In the end, it’s not that the WTO is inherently anti-environmental or out to further the agenda of northern, developed countries. In some cases, the WTO has ruled against cases of discrimination or argued there was a lack of multilateral support for actions. No, the problem is that we cannot be sure this will always be the way of the WTO. Leaders of the WTO will change over time, and there is no guarantee they will fairly enforce WTO policies. It would only take a few new members with a focus on industry over equity to shift the paradigm of the WTO away from its core values.

 There may be a way to save the WTO, with an idea seeded in the American system of law. Since many of the factors deciding seem to be objective, there exists no solid records or plans for dealing with issues. In law, past precedent is used as a point of reference in future court dealings. Imagine if such a concept could be folded in to WTO dealings. By looking to prior cases for guidance, the WTO can begin to build a collection of data important for dealing with new issues. This precedent is not binding either, but deviating from it requires a new interpretation and justification of existing law. While this idea may not be perfect, the fact remains that the WTO’s current system is not as solid as it may seem. There is always room for improvement.