2021-09-30-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）_23页_917kb

Environmental Goods Agreement Summary

Core Content

The Environmental Goods Agreement (EGA) is a plurilateral trade agreement under the World Trade Organization (WTO) aimed at reducing tariffs on environmental goods and services. Initiated in 2014, it was part of the broader Doha Round negotiations and followed the 2012 APEC agreement, which liberalized tariffs on 54 environmental goods. The EGA negotiations, however, collapsed in 2016 due to a combination of definitional disputes, structural limitations, and political disagreements, particularly involving China and the United States.

Main Points

• Origins and Objectives:
  The EGA was launched in July 2014 by 18 participants representing 46 WTO members. Its goal was to reduce or eliminate tariffs on environmental goods to promote trade and support climate change mitigation.

• Negotiation Structure:
  The agreement was structured around HS-6 codes, which categorize goods rather than individual products. This led to disputes over the scope of what constituted an environmental good, particularly with dual-use goods that could have unclear environmental impacts.

• Collapse in 2016:
  Talks collapsed on December 4, 2016, due to China's last-minute demands that significantly changed the list of products and the critical mass rules. These demands made it difficult to reach a consensus, especially with the EU, which had a different agenda.

• U.S. and EU Stance:
  The U.S. under the Obama administration aimed to conclude the deal quickly, which some experts believed was too ambitious. The Trump administration did not take a clear stance on the EGA, leading to a lack of leadership and further stalled negotiations.

• Critical Mass and Participation:
  The original participants represented about 90% of global trade in environmental goods, meeting the critical mass threshold. However, developing countries like Brazil, India, and South Africa did not participate, fearing negative impacts on their domestic industries.

• Definition of Environmental Goods:
  There is no universally agreed definition of environmental goods. The OECD and APEC lists differ in scope and coverage. The WTO list is broader, including items like fishing nets with sea turtle excluder devices, while the EU definition emphasizes renewable energy and climate mitigation.

• Services and Non-Tariff Barriers (NTBs):
  The EGA primarily focused on tariff reductions, excluding environmental services and non-tariff barriers. These NTBs, such as product standards and licensing practices, are seen as more significant trade barriers than tariffs. Including them would better address the full supply chain of environmental goods.

• Economic Implications:
  The EGA could bring economic benefits, especially to developing countries with high tariffs on environmental goods. Studies estimate that a successful agreement could increase the value of environmental goods trade by $24 billion and provide energy savings of $845 million annually in the U.S. due to cheaper imports of energy-efficient products.

• Future Prospects:
  With the Biden administration prioritizing climate action and the EU and China refining their environmental policies, there is renewed interest in restarting EGA negotiations. However, the lack of a clear definition, structural issues, and political tensions remain major obstacles.

Key Information

• Participants: Initially 18 participants from 46 WTO members, later including Turkey and Iceland.
• Product List: The WTO list included 411 products at the start, eventually narrowing to 304.
• Sector Coverage: The list was organized into 10 sectors, including air pollution control, energy efficiency, and solid and hazardous waste management.
• Tariff Rates: Negotiating countries had an average applied tariff of 3.4%, while developing countries had much higher rates (e.g., 11% in South Africa).
• Critical Mass: The agreement required 80% of global trade in environmental goods to be covered by participants to be binding on all WTO members.
• Phase-In Periods: China proposed a five-year phase-in for some goods, while the U.S. used a four-baskets model with varying phase-in periods.
• Freeriding Concerns: Non-participating countries could benefit from reduced tariffs without committing, which discouraged participation.

Challenges and Opportunities

Challenges:

• Definitional Disputes: Lack of a clear, universally accepted definition of environmental goods led to significant disagreement.
• Structural Limitations: HS-6 codes and ex-outs created ambiguity in tariff application.
• Exclusions: The agreement failed to address non-tariff barriers and environmental services, limiting its scope.
• Political Tensions: China's last-minute demands and the lack of U.S. leadership caused talks to collapse.

Opportunities:

• Renewed Interest: The Biden administration's focus on climate change and the EU's and China's evolving environmental policies provide a new impetus for restarting negotiations.
• Economic Benefits: A successful EGA could boost trade and environmental quality, especially in developing countries.
• Comprehensive Approach: Including services and non-tariff barriers would better reflect the complexity of environmental trade.

Conclusion

The EGA represents a significant opportunity to promote climate action through trade liberalization, but its collapse in 2016 highlights the challenges of defining and regulating environmental goods within the WTO framework. A renewed effort, taking into account the evolving nature of environmental trade and addressing structural and definitional issues, is essential to achieve a meaningful and inclusive agreement.