The Expanding Live Cattle Trade in Northern Australian

The north Australian beef industry is complex and dynamic. It is strategically positioned to access new and existing export markets. To prosper in a global economy, it will require strong processing and live cattle sectors, continued rationalisation of infrastructure, uptake of appropriate technology, and the synergy obtained when industry sectors unite and cooperate to maintain market advantage. Strategies to address food safety, animal welfare, the environment and other consumer concerns must be delivered. Strategic alliances with quality assurance systems will develop. These alliances will be based on economies of scale and on vertical cooperation, rather than vertical integration. Industry sectors will need to increase their contribution to Research, Development and Extension. These contributions need to be global in outlook. Industry sectors should also be aware that change (positive or negative) in one sector will impact on other sectors. Feedback along the food chain is essential to maximise productivity and market share.

Exploring profit - Sustainability trade-offs in cropping systems using evolutionary algorithms

Models that implement the bio-physical components of agro-ecosystems are ideally suited for exploring sustainability issues in cropping systems. Sustainability may be represented as a number of objectives to be maximised or minimised. However, the full decision space of these objectives is usually very large and simplifications are necessary to safeguard computational feasibility. Different optimisation approaches have been proposed in the literature, usually based on mathematical programming techniques. Here, we present a search approach based on a multiobjective evaluation technique within an evolutionary algorithm (EA), linked to the APSIM cropping systems model. A simple case study addressing crop choice and sowing rules in North-East Australian cropping systems is used to illustrate the methodology. Sustainability of these systems is evaluated in terms of economic performance and resource use. Due to the limited size of this sample problem, the quality of the EA optimisation can be assessed by comparison to the full problem domain. Results demonstrate that the EA procedure, parameterised with generic parameters from the literature, converges to a useable solution set within a reasonable amount of time. Frontier ‘‘peels’’ or Pareto-optimal solutions as described by the multiobjective evaluation procedure provide useful information for discussion on trade-offs between conflicting objectives.

Global trade in ornamental fish from an Australian perspective: The case for revised import risk analysis and management strategies

Over 1 billion ornamental fish comprising more than 4000 freshwater and 1400 marine species are traded internationally each year, with 8-10 million imported into Australia alone. Compared to other commodities, the pathogens and disease translocation risks associated with this pattern of trade have been poorly documented. The aim of this study was to conduct an appraisal of the effectiveness of risk analysis and quarantine controls as they are applied according to the Sanitary and Phytosanitary (SPS) agreement in Australia. Ornamental fish originate from about 100 countries and hazards are mostly unknown; since 2000 there have been 16-fold fewer scientific publications on ornamental fish disease compared to farmed fish disease, and 470 fewer compared to disease in terrestrial species (cattle). The import quarantine policies of a range of countries were reviewed and classified as stringent or non-stringent based on the levels of pre-border and border controls. Australia has a stringent policy which includes pre-border health certification and a mandatory quarantine period at border of 1-3 weeks in registered quarantine premises supervised by government quarantine staff. Despite these measures there have been many disease incursions as well as establishment of significant exotic viral, bacterial, fungal, protozoal and metazoan pathogens from ornamental fish in farmed native Australian fish and free-living introduced species. Recent examples include Megalocytivirus and Aeromonas salmonicida atypical strain. In 2006, there were 22 species of alien ornamental fish with established breeding populations in waterways in Australia and freshwater plants and molluscs have also been introduced, proving a direct transmission pathway for establishment of pathogens in native fish species. Australia's stringent quarantine policies for imported ornamental fish are based on import risk analysis under the SPS agreement but have not provided an acceptable level of protection (ALOP) consistent with government objectives to prevent introduction of pests and diseases, promote development of future aquaculture industries or maintain biodiversity. It is concluded that the risk analysis process described by the Office International des Epizooties under the SPS agreement cannot be used in a meaningful way for current patterns of ornamental fish trade. Transboundary disease incursions will continue and exotic pathogens will become established in new regions as a result of the ornamental fish trade, and this will be an international phenomenon. Ornamental fish represent a special case in live animal trade where OIE guidelines for risk analysis need to be revised. Alternatively, for countries such as Australia with implied very high ALOP, the number of species traded and the number of sources permitted need to be dramatically reduced to facilitate hazard identification, risk assessment and import quarantine controls. Lead papers of the eleventh symposium of the International Society for Veterinary Epidemiology and Economics (ISVEE), Cairns, Australia

Resolution of Cryptic Species Complexes of Tephritid Pests to Enhance SIT Application and Facilitate International Trade

Tephritid fruit flies (Diptera: Tephritidae) are considered by far the most important group of horticultural pests worldwide. Female fruit flies lay eggs directly into ripening fruit, where the maggots feed causing fruit loss. Each and every continent is plagued by a number of fruit fly pests, both indigenous as well as invasive ones, causing tremendous economic losses. In addition to the direct losses through damage, they can negatively impact commodity trade through restrictions to market access. The quarantine and regulatory controls put in place to manage them are expensive, while the on-farm control costs and loss of crop affect the general well-being of growers. These constraints can have huge implications on loss in revenues and limitations to developing fruit and vegetable-based agroindustries in developing, emergent and developed nations. Because fruit flies are a global problem, the study of their biology and management requires significant international attention to overcome the hurdles they pose. The Joint Food and Agriculture Organisation / International Atomic Energy Agency (FAO/IAEA) Programme on Nuclear Techniques in Food and Agriculture has been on the foreground in assisting Member States in developing and validating environment-friendly fruit fly suppression systems to support viable fresh fruit and vegetable production and export industries. Such international attention has resulted in the successful development and validation of a Sterile Insect Technique (SIT) package for the Mediterranean fruit fly. Although demands for R&D support with respect to Mediterranean fruit fly are diminishing due to successful integration of this package into sustainable control programmes against this pest in many countries, there were increasing demands from Member States in Africa, Asia and Latin America, to address other major fruit fly pests and a related, but sometimes neglected issue of tephritid species complexes of economic importance. Any research, whether it is basic or applied, requires a taxonomic framework that provides reliable and universally recognized entities and names. Among the currently recognized major fruit fly pests, there are groups of species whose morphology is very similar or identical, but biologically they are distinct species. As such, some insect populations that are grouped taxonomically within the same pest species, display different biological and genetic traits and show reproductive isolation which suggest that they are different species. On the other hand, different species may have been taxonomically described, but there may be doubt as to whether they actually represent distinct biological species or merely geographical variants of the same species. This uncertain taxonomic status has practical implications on the effective development and use of the SIT against such complexes, particularly at the time of determining which species to mass-rear, and significantly affects international movement of fruit and vegetables through the establishment of trade barriers to important agricultural commodities which are hosts to these pest tephritid species...

Central America: Labor Reports and Child Labor Reports Pursuant to the Trade Act of 2002, Section 2102(c)(8)-(9)

[Excerpt] These comments are in response to the “Request for Information Concerning Labor Rights in Costa Rica, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras and Nicaragua and their Laws Governing Exploitative Child Labor” published at 68 Fed. Reg. 19580 (April 21, 2003). This Request for Information was issued pursuant to Section 2102(c)(8) and (9) of the Trade Act of 2002, Pub. L. 107-210, which requires the President, with respect to any proposed trade agreement, to submit to Congress a “meaningful labor rights report” and a “report describing the extent to which the country or countries that are parties to the agreement have in effect laws governing exploitative child labor.”

The Context-integrity of the global carbon regime: The relevance and impact of the World Trade Organization

In the study of the integrity of the global carbon regime there are a number of institutions that must be considered for their impacts on this system. In particular, the subject matter of this chapter is concerned with the main international institution for trade, the World Trade Organization (the WTO). Otherwise stated, this chapter is concerned with how the institutional integrity of the global carbon regime aligns with the values and policy objectives of the WTO. This is done with a view to consider whether the global carbon regime aligns with these values and objectives in a way demonstrative of context-integrity. This alignment is not a single-sided undertaking and, therefore, it is essential that the underlying values of the WTO themselves align with the global carbon regime. I suggest this is particularly crucial given the importance of the objectives of the climate change regime, and the scientific predictions of the current climate projections.

Modelling the nitrogen-driven trade-off between nitrogen utilisation efficiency and water use efficiency of wheat in eastern Australia.

The nitrogen-driven trade-off between nitrogen utilisation efficiency (yield per unit nitrogen uptake) and water use efficiency (yield per unit evapotranspiration) is widespread and results from well established, multiple effects of nitrogen availability on the water, carbon and nitrogen economy of crops. Here we used a crop model (APSIM) to simulate the yield, evapotranspiration, soil evaporation and nitrogen uptake of wheat, and analysed yield responses to water, nitrogen and climate using a framework analogous to the rate-duration model of determinate growth. The relationship between modelled grain yield (Y) and evapotranspiration (ET) was fitted to a linear-plateau function to derive three parameters: maximum yield (Ymax), the ET break-point when yield reaches its maximum (ET#), and the rate of yield response in the linear phase ([Delta]Y/[Delta]ET). Against this framework, we tested the hypothesis that nitrogen deficit reduces maximum yield by reducing both the rate ([Delta]Y/[Delta]ET) and the range of yield response to evapotranspiration, i.e. ET# - Es, where Es is modelled median soil evaporation. Modelled data reproduced the nitrogen-driven trade-off between nitrogen utilisation efficiency and water use efficiency in a transect from Horsham (36°S) to Emerald (23°S) in eastern Australia. Increasing nitrogen supply from 50 to 250 kg N ha-1 reduced yield per unit nitrogen uptake from 29 to 12 kg grain kg-1 N and increased yield per unit evapotranspiration from 6 to 15 kg grain ha-1 mm-1 at Emerald. The same increment in nitrogen supply reduced yield per unit nitrogen uptake from 30 to 25 kg grain kg-1 N and increased yield per unit evapotranspiration from 6 to 25 kg grain ha-1 mm-1 at Horsham. Maximum yield ranged from 0.9 to 6.4 t ha-1. Consistent with our working hypothesis, reductions in maximum yield with nitrogen deficit were associated with both reduction in the rate of yield response to ET and compression of the range of yield response to ET. Against the notion of managing crops to maximise water use efficiency in low rainfall environments, we emphasise the trade-off between water use efficiency and nitrogen utilisation efficiency, particularly under conditions of high nitrogen-to-grain price ratio. The rate-range framework to characterise the relationship between yield and evapotranspiration is useful to capture this trade-off as the parameters were responsive to both nitrogen supply and climatic factors.

Interior of the Konservenfabrik E. Arnold und Co. (Arnold and Co. canned goods factory); Fuerth, Bavaria Business Establishments; Factories

Digital Image

Six unidentified, youngest members of a traditional Küfer guild posing in front of their wine barrels holding the tools of their trade and glasses of wine; Bad Dürkheim Portraits Men

Handwritten description on verso addressed to Herr u. Frau Ernst Weill

Interior of the Konservenfabrik E. Arnold und Co. (Arnold and Co. canned goods factory); Fuerth, Bavaria Business Establishments; Factories

Digital Image

Suomen maatalouden tuottamat kasvihuonekaasujen päästöt eri politiikkaskenaarioissa

Climate change is the single biggest environmental problem in the world at the moment. Although the effects are still not fully understood and there is considerable amount of uncertainty, many na-tions have decided to mitigate the change. On the societal level, a planner who tries to find an eco-nomically optimal solution to an environmental pollution problem seeks to reduce pollution from the sources where reductions are most cost-effective. This study aims to find out how effective the instruments of the agricultural policy are in the case of climate change mitigation in Finland. The theoretical base of this study is the neoclassical economic theory that is based on the assumption of a rational economic agent who maximizes his own utility. This theoretical base has been widened towards the direction clearly essential to the matter: the theory of environmental eco-nomics. Deeply relevant to this problem and central in the theory of environmental economics are the concepts of externalities and public goods. What are also relevant are the problems of global pollution and non-point-source pollution. Econometric modelling was the method that was applied to this study. The Finnish part of the AGMEMOD-model, covering the whole EU, was used for the estimation of the development of pollution. This model is a seemingly recursive, partially dynamic partial-equilibrium model that was constructed to predict the development of Finnish agricultural production of the most important products. For the study, I personally updated the model and also widened its scope in some relevant matters. Also, I devised a table that can calculate the emissions of greenhouse gases according to the rules set by the IPCC. With the model I investigated five alternative scenarios in comparison to the base-line scenario of Agenda 2000 agricultural policy. The alternative scenarios were: 1) the CAP reform of 2003, 2) free trade on agricultural commodities, 3) technological change, 4) banning the cultivation of organic soils and 5) the combination of the last three scenarios as the maximal achievement in reduction. The maximal achievement in the alternative scenario 5 was 1/3 of the level achieved on the base-line scenario. CAP reform caused only a minor reduction when com-pared to the base-line scenario. Instead, the free trade scenario and the scenario of technological change alone caused a significant reduction. The biggest single reduction was achieved by banning the cultivation of organic land. However, this was also the most questionable scenario to be real-ized, the reasons for this are further elaborated in the paper. The maximal reduction that can be achieved in the Finnish agricultural sector is about 11 % of the emission reduction that is needed to comply with the Kyoto protocol.

Monopolising Names? : The Protection of Geographical Indications in the European Community

Marketing of goods under geographical names has always been common. Aims to prevent abuse have given rise to separate forms of legal protection for geographical indications (GIs) both nationally and internationally. The European Community (EC) has also gradually enacted its own legal regime to protect geographical indications. The legal protection of GIs has traditionally been based on the idea that geographical origin endows a product exclusive qualities and characteristics. In today s world we are able to replicate almost any prod-uct anywhere, including its qualities and characteristics. One would think that this would preclude protec-tion from most geographical names, yet the number of geographical indications seems to be rising. GIs are no longer what they used to be. In the EC it is no longer required that a product is endowed exclusive characteristics by its geographical origin as long as consumers associate the product with a certain geo-graphical origin. This departure from the traditional protection of GIs is based on the premise that a geographical name extends beyond and exists apart from the product and therefore deserves protection itself. The thesis tries to clearly articulate the underlying reasons, justifications, principles and policies behind the protection of GIs in the EC and then scrutinise the scope and shape of the GI system in the light of its own justifications. The essential questions it attempts to aswer are (1) What is the basis and criteria for granting GI rights? (2) What is the scope of protection afforded to GIs? and (3) Are these both justified in the light of the functions and policies underlying granting and protecting of GIs? Despite the differences, the actual functions of GIs are in many ways identical to those of trade marks. Geographical indications have a limited role as source and quality indicators in allowing consumers to make informed and efficient choices in the market place. In the EC this role is undermined by allowing able room and discretion for uses that are arbitrary. Nevertheless, generic GIs are unable to play this role. The traditional basis for justifying legal protection seems implausible in most case. Qualities and charac-teristics are more likely to be related to transportable skill and manufacturing methods than the actual geographical location of production. Geographical indications are also incapable of protecting culture from market-induced changes. Protection against genericness, against any misuse, imitation and evocation as well as against exploiting the reputation of a GI seem to be there to protect the GI itself. Expanding or strengthening the already existing GI protection or using it to protect generic GIs cannot be justified with arguments on terroir or culture. The conclusion of the writer is that GIs themselves merit protection only in extremely rare cases and usually only the source and origin function of GIs should be protected. The approach should not be any different from one taken in trade mark law. GI protection should not be used as a means to mo-nopolise names. At the end of the day, the scope of GI protection is nevertheless a policy issue.

Greenwashing the Trans-Pacific Partnership: Fossil fuels, the environment, and climate change

There has been much controversy over the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) – a plurilateral trade agreement involving a dozen nations from throughout the Pacific Rim – and its impact upon the environment, biodiversity, and climate change. The secretive treaty negotiations involve Australia and New Zealand; countries from South East Asia such as Brunei Darussalam, Malaysia, Singapore, Vietnam, and Japan; the South American nations of Peru and Chile; and the members of the 1994 North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), Canada, Mexico and the United States. There was an agreement reached between the parties in October 2015. The participants asserted: ‘We expect this historic agreement to promote economic growth, support higher-paying jobs; enhance innovation, productivity and competitiveness; raise living standards; reduce poverty in our countries; and to promote transparency, good governance, and strong labor and environmental protections.’ The final texts of the agreement were published in November 2015. There has been discussion as to whether other countries – such as Indonesia, the Philippines, and South Korea – will join the deal. There has been much debate about the impact of this proposed treaty upon intellectual property, the environment, biodiversity and climate change. There have been similar concerns about the Trans-Atlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) – a proposed trade agreement between the United States and the European Union. In 2011, the United States Trade Representative developed a Green Paper on trade, conservation, and the environment in the context of the TPP. In its rhetoric, the United States Trade Representative has maintained that it has been pushing for strong, enforceable environmental standards in the TPP. In a key statement in 2014, the United States Trade Representative Mike Froman insisted: ‘The United States’ position on the environment in the Trans-Pacific Partnership negotiations is this: environmental stewardship is a core American value, and we will insist on a robust, fully enforceable environment chapter in the TPP or we will not come to agreement.’ The United States Trade Representative maintained: ‘Our proposals in the TPP are centered around the enforcement of environmental laws, including those implementing multilateral environmental agreements (MEAs) in TPP partner countries, and also around trailblazing, first-ever conservation proposals that will raise standards across the region’. Moreover, the United States Trade Representative asserted: ‘Furthermore, our proposals would enhance international cooperation and create new opportunities for public participation in environmental governance and enforcement.’ The United States Trade Representative has provided this public outline of the Environment Chapter of the TPP: A meaningful outcome on environment will ensure that the agreement appropriately addresses important trade and environment challenges and enhances the mutual supportiveness of trade and environment. The Trans-Pacific Partnership countries share the view that the environment text should include effective provisions on trade-related issues that would help to reinforce environmental protection and are discussing an effective institutional arrangement to oversee implementation and a specific cooperation framework for addressing capacity building needs. They also are discussing proposals on new issues, such as marine fisheries and other conservation issues, biodiversity, invasive alien species, climate change, and environmental goods and services. Mark Linscott, an assistant Trade Representative testified: ‘An environment chapter in the TPP should strengthen country commitments to enforce their environmental laws and regulations, including in areas related to ocean and fisheries governance, through the effective enforcement obligation subject to dispute settlement.’ Inside US Trade has commented: ‘While not initially expected to be among the most difficult areas, the environment chapter has emerged as a formidable challenge, partly due to disagreement over the United States proposal to make environmental obligations binding under the TPP dispute settlement mechanism’. Joshua Meltzer from the Brookings Institute contended that the trade agreement could be a boon for the protection of the environment in the Pacific Rim: Whether it is depleting fisheries, declining biodiversity or reduced space in the atmosphere for Greenhouse Gas emissions, the underlying issue is resource scarcity. And in a world where an additional 3 billion people are expected to enter the middle class over the next 15 years, countries need to find new and creative ways to cooperate in order to satisfy the legitimate needs of their population for growth and opportunity while using resources in a manner that is sustainable for current and future generations. The TPP parties already represent a diverse range of developed and developing countries. Should the TPP become a free trade agreement of the Asia-Pacific region, it will include the main developed and developing countries and will be a strong basis for building a global consensus on these trade and environmental issues. The TPP has been promoted by its proponents as a boon to the environment. The United States Trade Representative has maintained that the TPP will protect the environment: ‘The United States’ position on the environment in the TPP negotiations is this: environmental stewardship is a core American value, and we will insist on a robust, fully enforceable environment chapter in the TPP or we will not come to agreement.’ The United States Trade Representative discussed ‘Trade for a Greener World’ on World Environment Day. Andrew Robb, at the time the Australian Trade and Investment Minister, vowed that the TPP will contain safeguards for the protection of the environment. In November 2015, after the release of the TPP text, Rohan Patel, the Special Assistant to the President and Deputy Director of Intergovernmental Affairs, sought to defend the environmental credentials of the TPP. He contended that the deal had been supported by the Nature Conservancy, the International Fund for Animal Welfare, the Joint Ocean Commission Initiative, the World Wildlife Fund, and World Animal Protection. The United States Congress, though, has been conflicted by the United States Trade Representative’s arguments about the TPP and the environment. In 2012, members of the United States Congress - including Senator Ron Wyden (D-OR), Olympia Snowe (R-ME), and John Kerry (D-MA) – wrote a letter, arguing that the trade agreement needs to provide strong protection for the environment: ‘We believe that a '21st century agreement' must have an environment chapter that guarantees ongoing sustainable trade and creates jobs, and this is what American businesses and consumers want and expect also.’ The group stressed that ‘A binding and enforceable TPP environment chapter that stands up for American interests is critical to our support of the TPP’. The Congressional leaders maintained: ‘We believe the 2007 bipartisan congressional consensus on environmental provisions included in recent trade agreements should serve as the framework for the environment chapter of the TPP.’ In 2013, senior members of the Democratic leadership expressed their opposition to granting President Barack Obama a fast-track authority in respect of the TPP House of Representatives Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi said: ‘No on fast-track – Camp-Baucus – out of the question.’ Senator Majority leader Harry Reid commented: ‘I’m against Fast-Track: Everyone would be well-advised to push this right now.’ Senator Elizabeth Warren has been particularly critical of the process and the substance of the negotiations in the TPP: From what I hear, Wall Street, pharmaceuticals, telecom, big polluters and outsourcers are all salivating at the chance to rig the deal in the upcoming trade talks. So the question is, Why are the trade talks secret? You’ll love this answer. Boy, the things you learn on Capitol Hill. I actually have had supporters of the deal say to me ‘They have to be secret, because if the American people knew what was actually in them, they would be opposed. Think about that. Real people, people whose jobs are at stake, small-business owners who don’t want to compete with overseas companies that dump their waste in rivers and hire workers for a dollar a day—those people, people without an army of lobbyists—they would be opposed. I believe if people across this country would be opposed to a particular trade agreement, then maybe that trade agreement should not happen. The Finance Committee in the United States Congress deliberated over the Trans-Pacific Partnership negotiations in 2014. The new chair Ron Wyden has argued that there needs to be greater transparency in trade. Nonetheless, he has mooted the possibility of a ‘smart-track’ to reconcile the competing demands of the Obama Administration, and United States Congress. Wyden insisted: ‘The new breed of trade challenges spawned over the last generation must be addressed in imaginative new policies and locked into enforceable, ambitious, job-generating trade agreements.’ He emphasized that such agreements ‘must reflect the need for a free and open Internet, strong labor rights and environmental protections.’ Elder Democrat Sander Levin warned that the TPP failed to provide proper protection for the environment: The TPP parties are considering a different structure to protect the environment than the one adopted in the May 10 Agreement, which directly incorporated seven multilateral environmental agreements into the text of past trade agreements. While the form is less important than the substance, the TPP must provide an overall level of environmental protection that upholds and builds upon the May 10 standard, including fully enforceable obligations. But many of our trading partners are actively seeking to weaken the text to the point of falling short of that standard, including on key issues like conservation. Nonetheless, 2015, President Barack Obama was able to secure the overall support of the United States Congress for his ‘fast-track’ authority. This was made possible by the Republicans and dissident Democrats. Notably, Oregon Senator Ron Wyden switched sides, and was transformed from a critic of the TPP to an apologist for the TPP. For their part, green political parties and civil society organisations have been concerned about the secretive nature of the negotiations; and the substantive implications of the treaty for the environment. Environmental groups and climate advocates have been sceptical of the environmental claims made by the White House for the TPP. The Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand, the Australian Greens and the Green Party of Canada have released a joint declaration on the TPP observing: ‘More than just another trade agreement, the TPP provisions could hinder access to safe, affordable medicines, weaken local content rules for media, stifle high-tech innovation, and even restrict the ability of future governments to legislate for the good of public health and the environment’. In the United States, civil society groups such as the Sierra Club, Public Citizen, WWF, the Friends of the Earth, the Rainforest Action Network and 350.org have raised concerns about the TPP and the environment. Allison Chin, President of the Sierra Club, complained about the lack of transparency, due process, and public participation in the TPP talks: ‘This is a stealth affront to the principles of our democracy.’ Maude Barlow’s The Council of Canadians has also been concerned about the TPP and environmental justice. New Zealand Sustainability Council executive director Simon Terry said the agreement showed ‘minimal real gains for nature’. A number of organisations have joined a grand coalition of civil society organisations, which are opposed to the grant of a fast-track. On the 15th January 2013, WikiLeaks released the draft Environment Chapter of the TPP - along with a report by the Chairs of the Environmental Working Group. Julian Assange, WikiLeaks' publisher, stated: ‘Today's WikiLeaks release shows that the public sweetener in the TPP is just media sugar water.’ He observed: ‘The fabled TPP environmental chapter turns out to be a toothless public relations exercise with no enforcement mechanism.’ This article provides a critical examination of the draft Environment Chapter of the TPP. The overall argument of the article is that the Environment Chapter of the TPP is an exercise in greenwashing – it is a public relations exercise by the United States Trade Representative, rather than a substantive regime for the protection of the environment in the Pacific Rim. Greenwashing has long been a problem in commerce, in which companies making misleading and deceptive claims about the environment. In his 2012 book, Greenwash: Big Brands and Carbon Scams, Guy Pearse considers the rise of green marketing and greenwashing. Government greenwashing is also a significant issue. In his book Storms of My Grandchildren, the climate scientist James Hansen raises his concerns about government greenwashing. Such a problem is apparent with the TPP – in which there was a gap between the assertions of the United States Government, and the reality of the agreement. This article contends that the TPP fails to meet the expectations created by President Barack Obama, the White House, and the United States Trade Representative about the environmental value of the agreement. First, this piece considers the relationship of the TPP to multilateral environmental treaties. Second, it explores whether the provisions in respect of the environment are enforceable. Third, this article examines the treatment of trade and biodiversity in the TPP. Fourth, this study considers the question of marine capture fisheries. Fifth, there is an evaluation of the cursory text in the TPP on conservation. Sixth, the article considers trade in environmental services under the TPP. Seventh, this article highlights the tensions between the TPP and substantive international climate action. It is submitted that the TPP undermines effective and meaningful government action and regulation in respect of climate change. The conclusion also highlights that a number of other chapters of the TPP will impact upon the protection of the environment – including the Investment Chapter, the Intellectual Property Chapter, the Technical Barriers to Trade Chapter, and the text on public procurement.