Creating Space for the Environment in the World Trade Organization

                In the overwhelmingly anarchic arena of global environmental politics, the regulation and implementation of policy regarding the ecological well-being of the Earth is no small feat. Due to the differing interests of states regarding economic, political, and social gains, agreements over environmental policy are sparse and somewhat lacking as a result of the absence of a legitimate international organization which deals solely with environmental conflicts. With this in mind, the role of the World Trade Organization, as one of the most effective and legitimate international organizations recognized today, should extend to include environmental regulation. Though opponents may object to this coalition of environmental objectives with economic endeavors, the inherent link between environment and trade make this affiliation a rational move.

                It is necessary to note that the majority of the outcry against a formal alignment between the World Trade Organization and environmental policy (WTO) stems from environmental activist groups and members of civil societies. The primary concerns of such organizations are that the WTO will implement parameters which will prioritize trade and economic activity over environmental concerns. A brief look into a recent history shows that these trepidations lack proper backing; in the sensationalized “Shrimp Turtle” case explored by DeSombre and Barkin, the WTO actually ruled in a way that is now, “more focused on sea turtle protection, and less focused on the protection of the United States shrimping industry.” (DeSombre 2002). The ability of the WTO to adapt policy and incorporate trade regulations in such a way to protect environmental assets truly highlights the possibility of a future in which such a renowned global organization can hold states to a higher standards for environmental directives and standards.   

                A key component of this integration of environmental management into the mainframe of the World Trade Organization’s agenda would involve three major components, as detailed by DeSombre and Barkin. In an effort to protect states from favoritism and avoid the perpetuation of the North/South divide, it is necessary to apply the policy multilaterally, to ensure that the law is not arbitrary, and to validate that the law’s primary goal is to protect the environment. With these three factors in mind, it will be easier to increase the transparency of legislation as well as to create a more universally applicable set of regulations. Additionally, this would eliminate the likelihood of states shirking regulatory policies under the excuse that they are unfairly written in favor of specific states.  

                This future would require a drastic incorporation of environmental activist networks in order to be successful. A primary critique of the World Trade Organization’s involvement in environmental policy is the lack of expertise in the area. As the WTO currently consists primarily of trade specialists, down the road it would be necessary to involve the epistemological communities which comprise the sphere of environmental activists. A successful incorporation of the information politics garnered by the environmental arena would enable the WTO to ensure that the policies regulated were truly in the interest of environmental protection and sustainability. In accordance with the ecological modernist logic, trade is ultimately a catalyst for environmental protection and sustainability, and by integrating environmental experts in the field of trade, this link between economic interaction and ecological preservation can be strengthened to its fullest extent.   

                In its current state, the World Trade Organization possesses the potential to effectively regulate not only the trade between states, but also the environmental standards of such patterns. Perceived as one of the most effective international organizations in a system which is otherwise seen as anarchic, the WTO can extend its degree of political organization with a gradual series of changes. As an organization which has continued to grow as a supporter of environmental protection, demonstrated by instances such as the Shrimp Turtle case, through a coalition with environmental activist groups and epistemological communities the World Trade Organization can follow this trajectory of environmental policy governance well into the future. While there are those who firmly assert that the two realms of trade and ecological well-being are distinct, and that the WTO should shy away from involvement in both affairs, the reality is that no other organization in the international political community has the ability to perpetuate change and policy to the extent that the World Trade Organization can.  

DeSombre, E. R., & Barkin, J. (2002). Turtles and Trade: The WTO's Acceptance of Environmental Trade Restrictions. Global Environmental Politics, 2(1), 12-18. doi:10.1162/152638002317261445

Narmada as an Example: Are transnational movements a worthwhile cause?

  

Transnational critics of the Sardar Sarovar Dam on the Narmada River in India resisted the development on the grounds that it would displace thousands of indigenous people. Although the developers promised that the dam would provide water and energy for the people of Narmada Valley, opponents argued that these empty promises would never be realized. The benefits were largely overestimated to justify the project, even though the social and environmental costs were high. After the dam was built, naysayers’ predictions came to fruition; the irrigation systems to transport water to communities were never built, electricity generation never reached the projected levels, and the displaced communities were never rehabilitated. So why then, even in the presence of a strong international movement against the Sardar Sarovar Dam that prompted the World Bank to rescind funding, did the Indian government still continue the project? Although India’s motives for this controversial project remain unclear, the transnational activism movement known as the Narmada Alliance raises doubts regarding the effectiveness and legitimacy of transnational activism. As demonstrated by this Alliance, even the most widespread transnational activist movements can be ineffective at influencing state governments. Furthermore, even if transnational activism does influence the governing body of a state, its goals may not represent the true interests of that state. Therefore, transnational movements are not advisable approaches to establish positive change within a state.

            Kothari’s essay regarding global alliances and the Narmada movement characterizes Narmada as a success. The successes of the movement, he claims, were the World Bank’s withdrawal of funding for the project and the creation of the World Commission on Dams. These successes deserve some merit, but are not enough to declare the Narmada Alliance successful. The Alliance was able to garner support from both Western NGOs and international human rights and water organizations, which in turn were able to pressure the World Bank. Unfortunately, the alliance was unable to persuade the most important actor: the Indian government. According to Wapner, transnational activist groups are significant because they affect the behavior of larger collectives throughout the world and influence state decisions. Wapner’s description indicates the ultimate criteria on which a transnational movement should be evaluated: its ability to influence a state. In Narmada’s case, regardless of its impressive mobilization, pressure on the World Bank, use of peaceful protests, and increased global awareness of the issue, it failed to sway India’s decision to build the dam.

            The reason for this failure, and the reason that many transnational movements cannot influence state governments, is because the political structure within a state ultimately determines the extent to which a social or environmental movement can change state decisions. In India, for example, as indicated by international legal scholar BalakrishnanRajagopal, the Constitution assigns inter-state water disputes to the exclusive jurisdiction of specialized tribunals, which effectively eliminates public participation in settlements of issues regarding water. Because the structure of India’s water laws does not allow for public opinion to influence decisions, it follows naturally that international public opinion should not be considered when deciding to continue a dam project. Just as India’s legal assumptions regarding water influenced the effectiveness of the Narmada Alliance, implicit or explicit facets of government, legal systems, and publics can completely prevent a transnational movement from changing a state’s behavior. As we discussed in class, the Sea Shepherds’ dramatic tactics to call media attention to Japanese whaling have yet to contribute to widespread concern in the US, perhaps because whaling is not seen as a priority. For these reasons, even the most pervasive and convincing movement could fail if it attempted to influence the behavior of a state that did not value a particular movement in the political sphere; therefore, transnational movements are not a worthwhile channel to pursue change within a state.

            Furthermore, even if a transnational movement was able to reconcile a state’s inherent reservations about social movements and influence a state government to act in favor of the movement, what determines if that action was in fact the right decision for the state? What gives transnational alliances—which are often compromised of Western NGOs and activist groups—the right to determine what is best for a sovereign state? Although the goals of transnational movements represent the state’s interest on the surface, these international movements cannot possibly reflect the best interests of all factions in a particular state. What if the Narmada River dams’ irrigation and energy plans were dependent on the funding from the World Bank? What if the Sardar Sarovar Dam, though it temporarily displaced indigenous people, was part of India’s long-term plan for economic development in that area? The Indian government should handle development issues within its state, along with accommodating the thousands of voiceless people whose interests were not represented by the anti-dam transnational movements. Because individual governments—not obligatory schemes supported by transnational movements—are best suited to address the needs of its own citizens, it is not useful or appropriate to pursue transnational activism as a means of change.

            The Narmada Alliance exemplifies the two problems with transnational alliances: first, their inability to influence state behavior, and second, their misunderstanding of the needs of the state’s citizens. For this reason, transnational movements should be avoided because they are not sensible means to influence a country’s policy decisions.

The Role of the WTO in Environmental Protection

            The correct role of trade-based solutions in global environmental politics is surrounded by much controversy. The World Trade Organization (WTO) whose mission is to "open international trade for the benefit of all" is one of the largest and most effective organizations in regulating and governing international trade. Many environmentalists feel that a body whose main purpose is to promote free trade should not have the power to make decisions and legislation regarding the environment. However, there is a strong and inherent connection between trade and the environment. The WTO has a rightful role in environmental protection and exercises its regulatory powers justly and without prioritizing trade over the environment.

            Environmental interest groups that feel that the goals of the WTO are against those of their own organizations bring up some valid points about trade in general. There are implications of increased trade including increased transportation, depletion of natural resources, and pollution from factories. However, trade is both necessary and beneficial for development and prosperity in states. Additionally, comparative advantage can balance out the initial costs of production. It allows for states to produce only the goods they are most efficient at producing and trade with other countries for goods that they produce less efficiently, causing minimal environmental harm. The interdependence of the economies of states is the precise reason that the world's most effective international trade regulation body should be involved in environmental protection policy.

            The WTO has a number of measures in place to ensure that the environment is taken into consideration when decisions are being made. Sustainable development is claimed as an objective in the preamble of the WTO. There is also a Committee on Trade and Environment that is held regularly by all members to discuss the relationship between the environment and trade (Green Planet Blues 170-171). The WTO's Dispute Settlement Mechanism (DSM) has proven extremely effective and makes the organization qualified to make important decisions regarding environmental protection. The three principles that make up the DSM and guide the WTO are: the environmental rules must be applied fairly and non-arbitrarily, the attempts must be multilateral, and the rules must be clearly designed for environmental protection and conservation. Though many environmental interest groups claim that the WTO has historically made rulings favoring trade and industry over the environment, it is actually the principles of the DSM that the WTO is abiding by. A great example is the Shrimp-Turtle case discussed in DeSombre and Barkin's article. When the WTO ruled against the U.S. law aimed at protecting turtles in 1998, it was not because they were trying to protect trade interests but because the law did not satisfy the non-discrimination criterion of the DSM. When the United States changed the way the law was implemented in 2001, the WTO ruled in favor of the U.S. (DeSombre and Barkin, 12). This demonstrates the level-headedness of the WTO in making environmental decisions.

            Though it has been argued that the WTO does not specialize in the environment and is therefore unqualified to make these types of legislative decisions, the converse would also be true about environmental specialists. If those who specialize in the environment are making decisions about environmental policy, they could easily overlook aspects that involve trade and industry. States can propose environmental legislation with ulterior motives. While many environmentalists were upset about the 1998 ruling in the Shrimp-Turtle case, the WTO understood that the U.S. could have been discriminating against countries who produced products in certain ways. Its ruling ensured that it was not allowing unilateral actions to be made (GPB 171). The expertise that the WTO has in its realm ensures that if states propose legislation that aims to further their personal economic interests or harm the economy of another state under the cover of legislation for environmental protection, it will not pass. The inherent connection between trade and the environment makes it absolutely necessary that the body that makes decisions about international trade has the power to make rulings about international environmental policies.

            The mechanisms that the World Trade Organization has in place to make rulings about the environment have proven fair and effective. Trade and the environment are inseparable issues, especially as the world continues to develop and globalize. The trade-based solutions made by the WTO play a large role in global environmental politics, and rightfully so. Rather than viewing the WTO as an adversary or enemy, it is important that environmental interest groups work together with the World Trade Organization in order to accomplish their goals.

Conca, Ken, and Geoffrey DaBelko, eds. Green Planet Blues: Four Decades of Global

            Environmental Politics. 4th ed. Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 2010.

DeSombre, Elizabeth, and J. S. Barkin. Turtles and Trade: The WTO’s Acceptance of        Environmental Trade Restrictions. MIT Press. Web. 26 Sept. 2014.

Prospects for Treaties in the Counter-terrorism Regime?

            The introduction material in the first section of this course focused on environmental regimes and organizations, and in seeking to integrate this material with other international news and issues, I began to think and wonder why there wasn't much information or news about successes from the international counter-terrorism regime. We've begun to explore the environmental and climate change regimes, and some of the ineffective and effective treaties and protocols that have resulted from these international collaborations, but I don’t believe that we have seen much like this is the world of counter-terrorism.

With the ever-present threat of international terrorism continuing to grow, especially with the emergence of the Islamic State in Syria, individual nations all over the world are working diligently within their own states to prevent terrorist attacks at home, and abroad. In addition to the actions of individual states, there are intergovernmental organizations like the United Nations (U.N) Security Council, that focus on international peace-keeping and security, but these organizations still do not focus solely on combating terrorism and do not produce treaties specifically related to counter-terrorism efforts. Like the complexities involved in dealing with environmental issues ranging from stratospheric ozone depletion to systematic deforestation, it can be argued that due to the difficulties encountered when dealing with radical ideology and violence from non-state actors, that it is not feasible to create protocols like Montreal to effectively counter the actions of terrorist organizations.

            As we discussed in class, a regime is a system of principals, norms, rules and operating procedures that institutions accept to coordinate action in a specific area, and although we are focusing specifically on environmental regimes in this course, we can apply some of our understanding of treaties under the environmental regime to the counter-terrorism regime. Some of the ways in which we can assess the effectiveness of a regime include analyzing compliance with treaties and protocols and analyzing if the problem was actually solved. In seeking to discuss the prospects for the counter-terrorism regime, we can analyze the success of the Montreal Protocol in order to see why success is not as guaranteed in the counter-terrorism regime.

            As we know, the Montreal Protocol was the agreement created in order to help protect the depleting ozone layer, and overall, it was very successful in achieving its goal, particularly through the emergence of new technologies or “viable technological fixes” (Pielke Jr., 2012). Because of research and scientific discovery, regulations were more easily put in place to limit CFC’s and this helped to lower the rate of depletion of the ozone layer. Unfortunately, the solution to countering terrorism and terrorist attacks is not as straightforward as finding technological alternatives because no advancement in science or technology, no matter how large, can combat the radical ideology that leads to terrorist attacks and the loss of innocent civilian lives. One of the inherent difficulties that lies within countering terrorism is the necessity to address the radical ideology that groups spread in order to justify their actions and recruit new members and sympathizers. It is extremely difficult to battle an ideology because it involves so much more than bombing a suspected terrorist strong-hold or conducting targeted killings against terrorist leaders. It involves somehow reaching the root of the problem, which can be through addressing the grievances of these groups, in an effort to counter the radical ideology that they spread to their followers who are ready and willing to commit acts of violence.

            Further, the success of the Montreal Protocol was partly due to regime design and the ability of the agreement to incentivize states to actually comply with the regulations, and this is not something that is feasible with the non-state actors involved in terrorism. The Montreal Protocol was able to incentivize compliance through trade and the economy, and this would not be as straightforward in the counter-terrorism regime because it is not possible to incentivize terrorist organizations like al- Qaeda or the Islamic State that seek to annihilate the “the West”, its ideologies, and interests. For transformational organizations like these that seek the total destruction of their enemy, the use of incentives as a means to end the violence is not truly a feasible option for the counter-terrorism regime. Montreal was also successful because it was able to create a system of positive feedback to encourage continued compliance, and this too would not be easy to accomplish via a treaty because the non-state actors committing the acts of terror are not typically willing to compromise their goals.

It is clear that environmental issues still persist and that all issues are not completely “solved”, but the Montreal Protocol itself is widely viewed as a success in that it helped to phase out CFC’s and positively impacted the state of the ozone layer. The issue of combating terrorist attacks through counter-terrorism initiatives also hasn't been “solved” due to the on-going and evolving nature of the threat, and as demonstrated, it is not likely to be solved through international treaties like Montreal because of the inherent influence of non-state actors and complex radical ideologies. With this being said, does that mean there is room for an alternative to help with international counter-terrorism efforts, like an NGO devoted solely to counter-terrorism efforts? What would this look like and what would its prospects be? 

Photo from: http://www.itv.com/news/story/2014-06-10/iraq-in-state-of-emergency-as-insurgents-take-mosul-city/

Conserving the Commons: The United States’ and NGOs’ Roles in Environmental Protection

          Since this past Thursday, marine conservationists have been celebrating the United States’ decision to create the largest marine reserve in the world. According to a recent National Geographic article, this reserve will be an expansion of a current United States monument in the pacific, and will cover 490,000 square miles, roughly three times the size of California (Howard, 2014). Environmentalists have called this decision a “historic victory,” which prohibits commercial fishing, dumping, and mining throughout the protected waters (Howard, 2014).

This United States-driven decision results in the interminable protection of 3% of the world’s oceans (Howard, 2014). Through this action, the United States took a major stride in combating two significant global environmental problems—shared natural resources and global commons. The oceans are often plagued by the tragedy that occurs when numerous parties attempt to seize their share of desired resources. By restricting damaging commercial influence on this region of the oceans, the United States is protecting a subset of the world’s commons.

This powerful decision raises the question of the role that the United States plays internationally in protecting the environment. Specifically, could a country other than the United States have accomplished the same enormous conservation measure?

In Chasek, Downie, and Brown’s Global Environmental Politics (2010), the success of several environmental regimes is analyzed, including those that have focused on ozone, climate, whaling, and hazardous waste. The trend that was highlighted is that typically when the United States served as a pusher, or supporter, in the regime, it was successful; however, when they were a dragger, or an opponent, the regime failed. For example, in both the climate and hazardous waste regimes, even though the entire European Union was on-board with environmental regulation, the regime failed as the United States remained in the dragger position. This occurrence can be attributed to the high status and level of influence of the United States in international affairs.

If the United States had opposed this massive conservation of the world’s oceans, I believe that the measure would not have been successful. Instead, the United States led the decision and made significant progress in the protection of the oceans. So, how did the United States decide to take a stance in protecting the oceans? Specifically, why did the nation choose to protect the oceans surrounding the pacific islands?

States’ decisions to protect the environment are often heavily influenced by environmental NGOs and similar organizations. National Geographic highlighted their principal role in this decision to expand the pacific marine reserve. Sala and National Geographic's Pristine Seas project, which has been a long-term venture existing throughout the past several years, “aim[ing] to explore, survey, and protect several of the last wild places in the world's oceans” has played a central role in excursions to the pacific region (Howard, 2014). These expeditions assisted in highlighting the region’s unique biodiversity that was worth saving. In addition, representatives from Sala met with White House officials to argue for the reserve’s expansion on scientific grounds. Their argument rested on evidence related to the protection of the deep coral reefs, marine ecosystems, and several endangered species, in addition to the region’s severe vulnerability to the impacts of climate change and ocean acidification.

I would argue that the tactics of NGOs heavily influences the impact they are capable of producing for their issues of focus. The respectful reputations of National Geographic and Sala most likely enabled them to attract the attention of government officials towards their research and work in the pacific. Their focus on scholastic improvement and public education has allowed them to maintain close relationships with government officials, and serve as their trustworthy, information sources on environmental issues.

Crowded with issues and information, government officials often rely on the information provided to them by external sources on global issues. The methods of National Geographic and Sala have made them sources that politicians look to for updates on current issues. Their methods have equated to their success in producing public awareness while also stimulating positive environmental change, such as in the pacific marine reserve expansion.

However, other environmental NGOs have taken very different approaches to supporting their issues of concern. For instance, “Sea Shepherd,” a group of anti-whaling activists featured on the Animal Planet series Whale Wars, has become popular for their extreme tactics. Members of the group became notorious for illegally boarding of a Japanese Whaling Ship and then claiming to have been kidnapped, in order to draw attention to the issue of whaling. Their actions have become controversial in the media, as they have been praised for their impressive commitment to the issue, yet criticized for their radical direct-action methods.

Sea Shepherd’s extreme tactics have presented them with results that vary from those of National Geographic and Sala. Although Sea Shepherd has raised a praise-worthy amount of attention towards whaling, they have not made significant legal strides for the issue. I would attribute this lack of legal success to their extremist nature. Governmental officials are less likely to work with a radical, controversial group on an issue because they don’t want to risk their reputations through the collaboration.  

Imposing regulations that protect the environment and shared resources is difficult, considering the opposition of parties involved. It is often challenging to find a compromise between environmental and economic interests, which makes working with extreme parties problematic. In any issue, finding middle ground between parties is typically the best way to gain resolution. Radical environmental groups are more likely to not be satisfied with a regulation that only partially solves an issue, which is why government officials will always prefer to work with more moderate organizations.

In conclusion, to succeed in environmental conservation, an issue needs the United States and reasonable NGOs. The best way to protect the environment is to achieve the support of the United States. Similarly, the most effective way of persuading the United States is with the influence of respectable NGOs’ factual findings.

Chasek, P. S., Downie, D. L., & Brown. J. W. (2010). Global Environmental Politics. Boulder:

         Westview Press.

Howard, B. C. (2014, September 24). U.S. Creates Largest Protected Area in the World, 3X Larger

          Than California. National Geographic. Retrieved from: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2014/09/140924-pacific-remote-islands-marine-monument-expansion-conservation/