The WTO is not the enemy

The WTO is not the enemy
          
  The involvement of the WTO in shaping international environment policy has sparked controversy over whether or not economic/ trade based organizations should be able to make such policy. Detractors argue that the WTO both makes and breaks important environmental policy, and so in the interests of trade instead of environmental protection. While the detractors are correct in their evaluation of the WTO’s interests, they do not address how the WTO could avoid impactful environmental decisions. Trade and the environment are intrinsically connected; therefore WTO involvement in environmental decision-making is inevitable. Instead of proposing unrealistic alternatives to the WTO, environmental interests should work with the WTO to create environmental policy.

            The WTO’s involvement in environmental policy is really a matter of what is ideal and what is realistic. Ideally, many argue, environmentalists would be in charge of creating environment policy, or at the least have significant input in policy making.  While this plan would improve environmental policy decisions from the perspective of the environmentalist, it leaves out the impact such policies would have on trade. A heavily pro-environmentalism policy agenda on an international scale would inevitably increase the protectionism of natural resources, which would interrupt international trade. Such theoretical international organization would need political authority to enforce the protection of natural resources. In reality, no such organization exists nor would states be likely to give an international organization much enforcement power.  The WTO, on the other hand, has significant political power and it’s control over capital flows throughout the world. The WTO has used its political leverage to force compliance on several important settlement disputes over the environment.  Cases such as the shrimp-turtle and tuna-dolphin (brought before the WTO’s predecessor, the GATT) exemplify the WTO’s real-world influence of environmental policy, even in high powerful countries. The application of the dispute settlement mechanism against powerful countries like the United States shows that the WTO is serious about its impartiality. This should be promising to environmentalists who fear that the WTO acts in the interests of the most powerful countries, who happen to do the most damage to the environment.

            In my opinion, the WTO establishing a Committee on Trade and Environment shows for clear intent form Carmel issues to play some role in trade relations. While cynics might view this committee as a simple public relations move, I see the committee as a risk that the WTO would not have taken had it not been genuinely concerned about the environmental impact of trade.  By creating this committee, the WTO has created awareness over the relationship between trade and the environment.  From this awareness come the expectations that the Committee on Trade and Environment will take action on environmental issues. Environmental issues were not something the WTO needed to be involved with, yet did anyway. By sticking its neck out for investigating the relationship between the environment and trade, the WTO has open itself up to criticism by both the public and the media.

The optimism for such action must be taken with a grain of salt, however, as the committee has thus far show an unwillingness (or ineptitude) to anything more than talk about environmental issues. In terms of environmental policy, the WTO has been more active at removing state’s environmental protocol than at creating policy that protects the environment. With that being said, I remain optimistic that the Committee on Trade and Environment can one day create positive environmental policy and that the WTO will eventually rule in favor of environmental issues.    

             While detractors may view the WTO’s insistence on protecting natural resources, in order to protect trade long-term, as not real environmentalism, the organization’s honesty implicates a genuine commitment to environmental protection.  If environmental interests could frame policy as protecting a natural resource that is essential to trade, then the WTO could become a powerful tool for passing meaningful environmental policy.

            Probably the most important aspect of keeping the WTO involved in shaping environmental policy would be the unintended consequences of its exclusion from policy making. If states were able to agree to some sort of mandate that would prevent the WTO from making environmental decisions, then the WTO’s trade policies would become increasingly unsustainable. Even if there were an alternate international environmental organization that had the political authority to restrict the WTO’s actions, the WTO’s considerable influence over international capital could be leveraged against any international organization. If you consider the lack of enforcement power international organizations (that do not deal with money i.e. UN) have, its difficult to imagine an international organization truly limiting the WTO over environmental issues. In my opinion, only national security organizations such as NATO could limit the actions of the WTO. And it is unlikely that NATO will get involved in environmental policy anytime soon.

            The WTO has the power to shape international environmental, and whether or not this is ideal is irrelevant. Trade and the environment are intrinsically linked and simply cutting the WTO out of environmental policy is as impossible as it is flawed. Working with trade organizations is the most effective method of creating environmental policy, whether you like it or not.