国际战略研究中心-环境商品协议：新的前沿还是旧的僵局？（英）-2021.10-23页_879kb

Environmental Goods Agreement Summary

Introduction

The Environmental Goods Agreement (EGA) was initiated in 2014 by 18 WTO members, representing 46 countries, to reduce tariffs on environmental goods. The goal was to align with the Doha Ministerial Declaration, which aimed to eliminate trade barriers to environmental goods and services. The EGA followed the 2012 APEC agreement that liberalized tariffs on 54 environmental goods. Although the EGA had the potential to make a modest impact, it represented a positive step towards addressing climate change through trade mechanisms.

Key Issues in Negotiations

Definitional Challenges

• No Universal Definition: There is no agreed-upon definition of environmental goods.
• OECD Definition: The OECD's 1999 working definition includes goods that measure, prevent, or correct environmental damage.
• APEC List: Broader in scope, covering 54 product categories, mainly industrial products.
• WTO List: Expanded to include 411 products, later reduced to 304, with a focus on natural resource protection and renewable energy.

Structural Problems

• HS Codes: Negotiations were based on HS codes, which categorize goods rather than individual products.
• Ex-outs: Used to specify tariff application to certain product uses, but lack harmonization across countries.
• Tariff Rates: Vary significantly between developed and developing countries, with the latter having higher tariffs.

Participation and Critical Mass

• Limited Participation: Only China and Costa Rica were developing countries involved in the negotiations.
• Critical Mass Threshold: The agreement required at least 80% of global trade in environmental goods to be represented.
• China's Role: China's participation was crucial to meeting the threshold and preventing freeriding.
• India and Brazil: Both opted not to participate, fearing negative impacts on their domestic industries.

Phase-In Periods and Special Treatment

• China's Proposal: Sought different phase-in periods for developing countries, allowing up to 5% tariffs on 5% of products.
• U.S. Proposal: Followed the ITA model, dividing products into four baskets with varying phase-out timelines.
• Discrepancies: China's phase-in period for 40% of products was longer than the U.S. model, reflecting its interest in delaying liberalization of certain goods.

Environmental and Economic Implications

• Environmental Impact: Only 16 of the 304 products were found to have net environmental benefits, while 11% had negative impacts.
• Economic Benefits: The EGA could boost environmental goods trade by up to $24 billion.
• Services and Non-Tariff Barriers: Environmental services were largely excluded, despite their importance in the supply chain. Non-tariff barriers, such as licensing and standards, were also identified as significant trade obstacles.

Collapse of Negotiations

Chinese Demands

• Last-Minute Changes: In December 2016, China introduced a new product list that excluded several key items like gas turbines and certain electric motors.
• Snapback Mechanism: Proposed that countries could revert tariff cuts if trade between EGA members fell below 70% of global trade.
• Leadership Concerns: The Chinese negotiator, Wang Shouwen, was seen as less senior than the Commerce Minister, raising doubts about China's commitment.

Political and Economic Tensions

• Freeriding Concerns: Participating countries worried about non-participants benefiting from tariff reductions.
• Bicycle Dispute: A major conflict arose over the inclusion of bicycles, with the EU opposing their liberalization due to anti-dumping duties.

Conclusion

The EGA negotiations highlighted the complexities of defining environmental goods and the structural challenges of implementing trade liberalization. Despite the potential economic and environmental benefits, the collapse of talks in 2016 underscored the difficulties in achieving consensus among WTO members. With renewed interest in climate change and the need for a more comprehensive approach, the international trade community faces the challenge of restarting EGA negotiations and addressing both goods and services, as well as non-tariff barriers, to effectively support global environmental goals.