Every day brings a new set of protests against the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP) with protestors marching in the streets on New Zealand against corporate greed. The full details of the TPP are scant and negotiations between all parties broke down in early August when an impasse could not be reached over issues concerning drugs, dairy and cars. The socioeconomic consequences of the TPP are heavily disputed but almost all environmental groups have taken a stance against the TPP.
The environmental chapter of the TPP was revealed in Edward Snowden’s wikileaks and groups such as the American National Resources Defence Council (NRDC) has cited the lack of substantial enforceable environmental regulation as a key reason for the group’s opposition of the TPP. Groups also cite the indirect and direct subsidies on fishing fleets (in the form of payments, discounted loans and reduced prices for fuel) as support for overfishing. Additionally, groups believe that a comprehensive trade act should be predicated on Western countries (such as the USA and Australia) that have tough stances against logging should insist on the imposition of similar standards in countries that sign the TPP.
Two fundamental questions arise as a result of this discourse:
1) Should environmental regulations of other countries be a bargaining chip in TPP negotiations?
2) How can cross-border enforceability be obtained?
Environmental groups would argue that environmental regulations, especially on fisheries and logging, should be a key negotiating chip and that any trade partner that is going to be engaged as a supplier should be required to follow domestic regulations. However, it is probably important to recognise that environmental regulations are most effective when there is domestic appetite and ground level governmental backing for such regulation. This is not to say that multilateral environmental treaties are ineffective but rather that tying the issues of trade and the environment leads to sub-optimal outcomes in terms of trade for all parties coupled with environmental regulations that have weak enforceability and minimal support. When these issues are detangled, the idea of leveraging trade terms in exchange for environmental regulations is broken and the issues can be dealt with separately.
What are the benefits of having separate trade and environmental negotiations? Firstly, it means that countries that come to the negotiating table on environmental regulations come of their own accord which makes them more willing to comply with international standards. The relatively high international participation in international accords such as Kyoto and the Copenhagen Treaty show that there is an appetite for multilateral environmental agreements even without international pressure. Similar agreements in the areas of over-fishing, logging and wildlife protection are both possible and likely to be taken much more seriously domestically
Secondly, the enforceability of these environmental regulations as outlined in the leaked copies of the TPP is considered to be weak as it only goes so far as to consider tribunals rather than trade sanctions (as is customary for commercial violations). However, trade sanctions for environmental violations are put in place, it makes countries far less likely to call out breaches of environmental regulation as disrupting mutually beneficial (or even critical) trades is likely to be unpopular and therefore will never be used and breaches of terms will likely never be highlighted. Whereas, decoupled agreements allow for investigations to be conducted without such consequences for all parties making them much more likely to happen.
And finally, in the long term, trade negotiations are likely to be more successful when the environmental issues are detangled from the deal. This will likely lead to significant economic development in many less-developed countries and bring them to a position where they are more willing to adopt and self-impose standards for environmental regulations. Note how developed countries such as Australia and Canada have much stricter environmental regulations than Malaysia or the Philippines largely because they have the leeway as developed economies to impose and enforce restrictions with public support and without fear of significant economic consequences.
The efforts of environmental groups are probably much better spent creating public appetite for more independent, comprehensive environmental reform.
About the Author
