Big Green Gaps: Our inability to tackle the messy issues at the interface of trade, development and the green economy

The document addresses the tension between the pursuit of a green economy and the existing international trade system. It argues that while Rio+20 provided general guidance, it failed to establish what constitutes 'appropriate state behaviour' regarding green industrial policies, such as subsidies and local content requirements. The author highlights a rise in trade frictions—including disputes between the U.S., China, and the EU over solar and wind technology—and asserts that the WTO's Dispute Settlement Mechanism is ill-suited to resolve these issues because they stem from a lack of international consensus on policy propriety rather than simple rule breaches. The text advocates for the creation of an institutional space, such as through UNCTAD, to evaluate the effectiveness of green tools and their impacts on trading partners, particularly developing nations, to ensure a just transition.

• The outcomes of the Rio+20 conference, specifically the 'The Future We Want' document, provide welcome but insufficient guidance for navigating the trade system, as they lack specific criteria for the propriety of green economy policies.
• Green economy policies—defined as measures for environmental ends that also target national economic goals—often involve controversial tools with significant trade impacts, some of which are illegal or occupy 'grey areas' under WTO rules.
• The author proposes that the propriety of green industrial policies should be judged based on two questions: whether the measures are effective in achieving their goals and what the resulting impacts are on trading partners.
• The WTO's Dispute Settlement Mechanism (DSM) is considered an inappropriate venue for resolving green economy conflicts because it is designed to adjudicate rule breaches, not to determine the propriety of policies where no international agreement exists.
• Recent trade frictions illustrate the instability caused by the lack of consensus, including U.S. anti-dumping duties of up to 255 per cent on Chinese solar cells and EU anti-dumping investigations into Chinese solar modules covering €21 billion in trade flows.
• Because the WTO cannot currently provide the necessary space for discussion due to the unfinished Doha Round, the author suggests UNCTAD or a collaboration of institutions should facilitate a non-legal, non-negotiating framework to discuss green economy measures.

APA

Cosbey, A. (2012). Big Green Gaps: Our inability to tackle the messy issues at the interface of trade, development and the green economy. International Institute for Sustainable Development. https://www.iisd.org/system/files/publications/big_green_gaps.pdf

Chicago

Cosbey, Aaron. Big Green Gaps: Our inability to tackle the messy issues at the interface of trade, development and the green economy. International Institute for Sustainable Development, 2012. https://www.iisd.org/system/files/publications/big_green_gaps.pdf.

Wikipedia

{{cite press release |last1=Cosbey |first1=Aaron |title=Big Green Gaps: Our inability to tackle the messy issues at the interface of trade, development and the green economy |publisher=International Institute for Sustainable Development |date=25 September 2012 |url=https://www.iisd.org/system/files/publications/big_green_gaps.pdf |access-date=17 August 2026 |via=Climate Insights Directory}}

BibTeX

@misc{cosbey2012big, author = {Cosbey, Aaron}, title = {{Big Green Gaps: Our inability to tackle the messy issues at the interface of trade, development and the green economy}}, publisher = {International Institute for Sustainable Development}, year = {2012}, month = sep, url = {https://www.iisd.org/system/files/publications/big_green_gaps.pdf}, urldate = {2026-08-17}, note = {Indexed by Climate Insights Directory} }