trade_meas_uncertainty_nov1999-c4a55c4b06654618.pdf

This research paper, published in November 1999 by WWF-World Wide Fund for Nature and authored by experts from the Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL), examines the conflict between World Trade Organization (WTO) rules and trade measures used in Multilateral Environmental Agreements (MEAs). The authors argue that uncertainty regarding WTO consistency is used by some nations to 'chill' the development of effective environmental laws, specifically citing the Biosafety Protocol and the POPs Agreement. The paper recommends that WTO members adopt a political statement of consistency and negotiate a separate agreement to grant MEAs equal status with WTO rules.

• Trade measures are utilized in over 20 Multilateral Environmental Agreements (MEAs) to regulate harmful products, remove economic incentives for environmental destruction, ensure compliance, and encourage broad international participation.
• There is significant uncertainty regarding whether MEA trade measures conflict with core WTO obligations, specifically the 'most favored nation' obligation (Article I), the 'national treatment' obligation (Article III), and the prohibition on 'quantitative restrictions'.
• The 'WTO chill factor' occurs when countries or coalitions use uncertainty about WTO rules during environmental negotiations to weaken MEA provisions or reduce their scope to protect trade interests.
• The Biosafety Protocol negotiations in Cartagena were hindered by the 'Miami Group' (including Argentina, Australia, Canada, Chile, the US, and Uruguay), who used potential WTO conflicts to remove trade bans with non-parties and weaken labeling and tracking requirements.
• The Montreal Protocol is cited as a success story where trade measures—including restrictions on trade with non-parties—prevented 'leakage' and encouraged global membership, putting ozone levels on track to recover to pre-1980 levels by 2050.
• The authors argue that 'WTO savings clauses' are inappropriate because they fail to reduce uncertainty, may deny MEAs equal status with WTO rules, and can be used to justify weak implementation of environmental agreements.
• The paper recommends that WTO Members immediately issue a political statement affirming the consistency of MEA trade measures with WTO obligations and pledging not to challenge them.
• The authors propose the negotiation of a separate WTO agreement on MEAs as the preferred long-term solution, as it would establish equal status for MEAs and avoid the need to reinterpret GATT Article XX.

APA

Center for International Environmental Law (n.d.). trade_meas_uncertainty_nov1999-c4a55c4b06654618.pdf. https://www.ciel.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/Trade_MEAs_Uncertainty_Nov1999.pdf

Chicago

Center for International Environmental Law. trade_meas_uncertainty_nov1999-c4a55c4b06654618.pdf. n.d. https://www.ciel.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/Trade_MEAs_Uncertainty_Nov1999.pdf.

Wikipedia

{{cite report |author=Center for International Environmental Law |title=trade_meas_uncertainty_nov1999-c4a55c4b06654618.pdf |url=https://www.ciel.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/Trade_MEAs_Uncertainty_Nov1999.pdf |access-date=17 August 2026 |via=Climate Insights Directory}}

BibTeX

@techreport{centerforinternationalenvironmentallawndtrademeasuncertaintynov1999c4a55c4b06654618pdf, author = {{Center for International Environmental Law}}, title = {{trade\_meas\_uncertainty\_nov1999-c4a55c4b06654618.pdf}}, institution = {Center for International Environmental Law}, url = {https://www.ciel.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/Trade_MEAs_Uncertainty_Nov1999.pdf}, urldate = {2026-08-17}, note = {Indexed by Climate Insights Directory} }