Summary

AI-generated

This summary is written by a language model reading the source document. It is not the publisher's words and is not a substitute for the original.

Learn more about AI enrichment

The paper examines the intersection of MEAs and the WTO, highlighting conflicts regarding trade measures, the precautionary principle, and intellectual property rights. It argues that the current lack of legal certainty inhibits the implementation of environmental agreements and proposes legal clarifications, sustainability assessments, and enhanced inter-institutional cooperation to align trade and environmental governance.

Key insights

AI-generated

These insights are written by a language model reading the source document. They are not the publisher's words and are not a substitute for the original.

Learn more about AI enrichment
  • The relationship between trade measures used in MEAs and WTO rules remains unclear, which may lead to the underdevelopment and inadequate implementation of these environmental measures.
  • There is a significant tension between the precautionary principle, a core element of many MEAs, and the 'science-based' approach of the WTO, specifically regarding the interaction between the Biosafety Protocol and the WTO's Agreement on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures (SPS Agreement).
  • The WTO's TRIPS Agreement may conflict with the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) by requiring intellectual property protection for genetic resources without ensuring that benefits are shared with source countries and communities.
  • Liberalisation of services under the General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS) could negatively impact MEA objectives, such as tourism affecting biodiversity, or transportation and energy services aggravating global warming.
  • The WTO Committee on Trade & Environment (CTE) has made little progress in strengthening the MEA-WTO relationship or recommending modifications to the trading system to address existing tensions.
  • To resolve legal uncertainty, the paper suggests applying international law principles such as 'lex specialis' (where specialised treaties prevail over general ones) and the 'presumption against conflicts' to interpret WTO rules in support of MEAs.
  • The authors recommend the use of ex ante and ex post sustainability assessments to understand how trade liberalisation affects environmental resources covered by MEAs, such as forests and fisheries.

Cite the original document

APA
Stilwell, M., & Tarasofsky, R. (2001). WWF-CIEL Discussion Paper. Center for International Environmental Law. https://www.ciel.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/Coherent_EnvirEco_Governance.pdf
Chicago
Stilwell, Matthew, and Richard Tarasofsky. WWF-CIEL Discussion Paper. Center for International Environmental Law, 2001. https://www.ciel.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/Coherent_EnvirEco_Governance.pdf.
Wikipedia
{{cite report |last1=Stilwell |first1=Matthew |last2=Tarasofsky |first2=Richard |title=WWF-CIEL Discussion Paper |publisher=Center for International Environmental Law |date=October 2001 |url=https://www.ciel.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/Coherent_EnvirEco_Governance.pdf |access-date=17 August 2026 |via=Climate Insights Directory}}
BibTeX
@techreport{stilwell2001wwfciel, author = {Stilwell, Matthew and Tarasofsky, Richard}, title = {{WWF-CIEL Discussion Paper}}, institution = {Center for International Environmental Law}, year = {2001}, month = oct, url = {https://www.ciel.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/Coherent_EnvirEco_Governance.pdf}, urldate = {2026-08-17}, note = {Indexed by Climate Insights Directory} }

Full text

Collected · Record updated