Dispute resolution and “environmental” provisions in the WTO: promising developments for environmental matters

En la actualidad, la política internacional tiende hacia la unificación económica y cultural (globalización), en la cual la totalidad de las naciones se encuentran vinculadas por interacciones comerciales. Para que los compromisos adquiridos en materia de protección ambiental sean respetados, el derecho ambiental debe dejar de ser considerado como una disciplina separada y buscar sinergias que le permitan convertirse en un actor importante en las relaciones comerciales. En el presente ensayo se argumenta que el comercio internacional y el derecho ambiental han coevolucionado en las últimas tres décadas, hasta llegar a un balance en el concepto de desarrollo sostenible.Este artículo explora esta coevolución, mientras propone que la Organización Mundial del Comercio (OMC) puede jugar un importante rol en el cumplimiento de los objetivos internacionales de protección ambiental si sus disposiciones “verdes” y su sistema de resolución de conflictos son utilizados para promoverlos, tal como está sucediendo. Para ilustrar este punto, se presenta un breve resumen de los tratados comerciales y ambientales suscritos desde los años setenta, seguido de una explicación de las disposiciones legales de la OMC que pueden ser consideradas como “verdes”, con el fin de hallar puntos de convergencia que puedan ser utilizados por los países miembros no solo para justificar la adopción de normativas domésticas de protección ambiental, sino también para instar a los otros signatarios en el cumplimiento de sus obligaciones en esta área.

Environmental provisions in Japanese regional trade agreements with developing countries

With the growing interest in environmental issues in the global community, recently concluded regional trade agreements (RTAs) have introduced environmental provisions. These RTAs will help achieve sustainable development at the intersection of trade liberalization and ever-increasing environmental concerns. However, environmental provisions are not incorporated into all RTAs. For example, Japanese RTAs often incorporate environmental issues only in the preamble or relevant articles. As the first step in examining the environmental provisions in RTAs, this paper focuses on the RTAs that Japan has concluded with developing countries. The main characteristic of environmental provisions in Japanese RTAs is that there are very few relevant provisions. All Japanese RTAs has neither environmental chapters nor side agreements. However, the attitude toward the environment in Japanese RTAs has gradually changed since the signing of the Japan-Chile EPA in 2007, in which a joint environmental statement was adopted. Although Japanese RTAs have environmental provisions, environmental problems originating from the RTAs may occur. One of the possible causes is a lack of environmental impact assessment. Japanese RTAs need to incorporate an environmental impact assessment system in order to identify environmental problems resulting from its RTAs, and to enable the country to take appropriate measures at the appropriate time.

The Nicaragua Canal. Is the Assessment in line with National Environmental Law?

In 2013, the Government of Nicaragua approved the concession for a 173-mile canal to the Hong Kong Nicaragua Canal Development Investment Group. As the Western Hemisphere's second poorest nation, Nicaragua is attracted the promises of economic growth that may come as a result of the Canal Project. However, potential economic benefits may be offset by environmental and social damages that would likely occur as a result of the project. The Canal would bisect 16 watersheds, 15 protected areas, and 25 percent of Nicaragua’s rainforest, which would have high impacts on biodiversity, watershed services, and indigenous communities. In 1996, Law No. 217 was enacted to standardize the use and conservation of the environment and natural resources of Nicaragua. My research compares the Environmental and Social Impact Assessment of the Nicaragua Canal to the Environmental provisions of Law No. 217. This analysis can help understand the legal viability of the ESIA under Nicaragua environmental laws.

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.

The 2002 US Farm Bill: what's in it for CAP reform?

The 2002 U.S. Farm Bill (the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act or FSRIA) provides considerably more government subsidies for U.S. agriculture than Congress envisaged when it passed the preceding 1996–2002 FAIR Act. We review the FAIR record, showing how government subsidies increased greatly beyond those originally scheduled. For FSRIA, we outline key commodity, trade, and conservation and environmental provisions. We expect that the commodity programmes will: (a) encourage production when the market calls for less; (b) significantly increase subsidies over FAIR baseline subsidies; (c) press against current WTO and possible Doha Round support limits; and (d) aggravate trading partners. Finally, we suggest two lessons from the U.S. policy experience that might benefit those working on CAP and WTO reform. First, past research shows that farm programmes have little to do with the economic health of rural communities. Second, programme transparency, and especially public disclosure of the level of payments going to individual farmers, by name, influences the farm policy debate. Personalized data show what economists have long maintained—that the bulk of programme benefits go to a relatively few, large, producers—but do so in a way that captures the public and policy-makers' attention

A divulgação de provisões e passivos contingentes ambientais pelas empresas do setor de energia elétrica em comparação ao desenvolvimento da normatização da evidenciação contábil

O pressuposto desta pesquisa é de que a divulgação de informações ambientais, no âmbito das provisões e passivos contingentes, reagiu aos avanços na normatização contábil. A normatização contábil genérica sobre evidenciação de obrigações incertas era restrita, em meados de 1976, à Lei no 6.404, e assim permaneceu ao longo de pelo menos uma década e meia, quando começou a ser desenvolvida. Ao longo dos anos foram criados padrões obrigatórios de divulgação, com critérios de julgamento mais detalhados para a classificação da obrigação incerta em provável, possível ou remota. Embora ainda apresente algum grau de subjetividade, o desenvolvimento destes critérios pode ter contribuído para a diminuição da assimetria informacional: a empresa passou a contar com um conjunto de orientações mais claras e, portanto, com melhores condições de averiguar e divulgar suas obrigações incertas. Esse avanço contribuiu para que as obrigações ambientais passassem a ter maior exposição, principalmente no âmbito das empresas potencialmente poluidoras, como as do setor de energia elétrica, que utilizam recursos naturais e modificam o meio ambiente. Neste contexto, o objetivo deste estudo foi analisar as evidências de passivo ambiental divulgadas pelas empresas do setor de energia elétrica, de 1997 a 2014. Para tanto, foi desenvolvido um estudo qualitativo, descritivo e longitudinal, por meio da análise de conteúdo de 941 notas explicativas, de uma população de 64 empresas do setor de energia elétrica, de acordo com listagem na BM&FBovespa, em maio de 2015. A amostra foi constituída de 26 empresas, que divulgaram o total de 468 notas explicativas no site da CVM, de 1997 a 2014. Ao longo destes 18 anos, 14 empresas da amostra (53,85%) evidenciaram passivos ambientais ao menos uma vez e 12 instituições (46,15%) não o fizeram e, do total de 468 notas explicativas, 100 (21,37%) evidenciaram passivo ambiental. O número de evidências de passivos ambientais era pequeno em meados de 1997, mas ascendeu, com um aumento mais consistente a partir de 2006, ano que coincide com a aprovação da Norma e Procedimento de Contabilidade 22 - Provisões, Passivos, Contingências Passivas e Contingências Ativas, emitida pelo IBRACON. Adicionalmente, a materialidade quantitativa estava na média de 0,61% para provisões ambientais e 0,89% para os passivos contingentes ambientais, desconsiderando-se os outliers. A dimensão das notas explicativas, em termos de quantidade de palavras, foi crescente e diversificada. Em conclusão, a evidenciação contábil pode, em adição à evidenciação voluntária, ser um meio plausível para a divulgação de questões ambientais e redução da assimetria informacional, principalmente quando a normatização contábil se faz mais clara e detalhada.

Environmental constitutional reform in the developing world : shifting the perspective of international law?

In recent years a growing number of states have chosen to recognise environmental issues in their national constitutions. Some have added declarations about the value of the environment, some have sought to restrict or regulate government’s ability to take action which would potentially harm the environment, while others have proclaimed that citizens possess a right to an environment of a particular quality. A survey of these constitutional provisions reveals that the majority of reform in this area has come from developing states, including a number of states which have been designated as among the least developed countries in the world. The increasing focus on constitutional environmental rights appears to represent a shift in the attitude of developing and emerging economies, which could in turn be influential in setting the tone of the environmental rights debate more broadly, with potential to shape the future development of international law in the area. This chapter examines constitutional environmental rights in an attempt to determine whether consistent state practice can in fact be identified in this area which might form the basis of an emerging norm. It will also analyse some of the potential contributing factors to the proliferation of a constitutional right to a good environment among developing states, and the implications for the development of customary international law.

Testing limited environmental liability against human rights requirements. IES WORKING PAPER 3/2009

Questions regarding oil spills remain high on the political agenda. Legal scholars, legislators as well as the international, European and national Courts struggle to determine key issues, such as who is to be held liable for oil spills, under which conditions and for which damage. The international regime on oil spills was meant to establish an “equilibrium” between the needs of the victims (being compensated for their harm) and the needs of the economic actors (being able to continue their activities). There is, however, a constantly increasing array of legal scholars’ work that criticizes the regime. Indeed, the victims of a recent oil spill, the Erika, have tried to escape the international regime on oil spills and to rely instead on the provisions of national criminal law or EC waste legislation. In parallel, the EC legislator has questioned the sufficiency of the international regime, as it has started preparing legislative acts of its own. One can in fact wonder whether challenging the international liability regime with the European Convention on Human Rights could prove to be a way forward, both for the EC regulators as well as the victims of oil spills. This paper claims that the right to property, as enshrined in Article P1-1 of the Human Rights Convention, could be used to challenge the limited environmental liability provisions of the international frameworks.

Carbon Market Provisions in the Paris Agreement (Article 6). CEPS Special Report No. 128/January 2016

The markets provisions, contained in Article 6 of the Paris Agreement adopted in December 2015, can be seen as both a major success and a minor miracle. Throughout 2015, and during COP21 itself, the prediction was for a very small reference to anything related to markets, or possibly even the total omission of any such reference in the text. As predicted, the markets/non-markets text in Article 6 of the Paris Agreement (PA) was one of the last issues to be agreed, in the last night of COP21, shortly before the text went to the COP President, French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius, for final approval and its subsequent release to the delegates for acceptance on 12 December 2015. This paper presents the evolution of the ideas contained in Article 6 of the Paris Agreement, and how these were captured in textual form in different drafts of the agreement. Understanding the origin of different provisions in the PA, and their evolution, may prove crucial. Losing the institutional memory may lead to attempts, through re-interpretation of the PA, to renegotiate it.

Grants and loans for municipal water supply and watewater [i.e. wastewater] treatment systems : water conservation provisions : final report of Task Force 11 /

Mode of access: Internet.

A primer regarding certain provisions of the Illinois groundwater protection act /

"January, 1988."

The Economic impact of the rotogravure and flexographic printing provisions of proposed regulation R85-21 : final report /

Prepared for Illinois Dept. of Energy and Natural Resources, Energy and Environmental Affairs Division.

International environmental and development policy cooperation and the transition process of the Central and Eastern European countries

The political and economic changes in countries of the Central and Eastern European region during the recent two decades had significant implications on their participation in international environmental policy-making. These changes were motivated by the changing international political priorities and economic interests, realization of their part in the "common but differentiated responsibility" for the global environmental processes and the relatively modest capacities for international development cooperation. The situation of these countries was acknowledged by the international community by granting specific provisions to these "economies in transition" in international environmental policy mechanisms. In spite of the rapidly diverging external relations of the various groups of these countries, to some extent and in different forms the transition phase is still prevailing and has its effect on the ongoing international environmental negotiations. The paper describes the background of these changes, demonstrates the specific provisions for these countries that made possible their participation in the common efforts to tackle the emerging global and regional environmental problems by acceding to the relevant international mechanisms.

Environmental Assessments: A How-To Manual, 2001

This manual is intended to provide complete but concise information on how to prepare an Environmental Assessment in accordance with Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) regulations. These regulations incorporate the requirements of the U.S. Department of Transportation Order 5610.lC, "Procedures for Considering Environmental Impacts," as found in 23 CFR 771 (Federal Regulations (F.R.) August 28, 1987) and the "Regulations for Implementing the Procedural Provisions of the Environmental Policy Act," as set forth by the Council on Environmental Quality (i.e., 40 CFR Part 1500-1508).