5 Using Preferential Trade Agreements to Promote Climate Change Mitigation

The proliferation of Preferential Trade Agreements (PTAs) and Regional Trade Agreements (RTAs) has given rise to significant debate on the need to measure, understand and possibly regulate the impact these agreements have on the multilateral trading system under the umbrella of the World Trade Organization (WTO). This article will discuss the two Doha Transparency Mechanisms (legal transparency) regarding regional trade agreements, as they appear in two General Council decisions from 2006 and 2010. I will argue based on a closer look and a consistent interpretation of Paragraph 10 of the Doha Ministerial Declaration that there is another type of transparency that is relevant to the discussion on PTAs/RTAs, namely “internal transparency.” “Internal transparency stricto sensu” highlights the significance of trust in the WTO institutional processes, such as negotiations, decision-making, dispute settlement and trade monitoring that the representatives of developing member states should have in order for the WTO system to function productively. “Internal transparency lato sensu” is introduced in this article as an extension to include any decision-making deficits, exclusionary and asymmetrical outcomes specifically in the area of unchecked Preferential Trade Agreement proliferation. Instead of a conclusion, the article offers some proposals for more a meaningful progress in the WTO with respect to PTAs/RTAs The proposals aim at raising the profile of both legal and internal of transparency and posit that raising the profile of one will inevitably lead in improvements in the other.

Both the trade and climate change regimes have their own goals and tools. The main goals of the international trading system are trade liberalization, citizens’ welfare, economic growth, and the optimal use of the world’s natural resources. There is a set of closed and defined trade policy tools (i.e., trade regulation): tariffs, quantitative restrictions, trade remedies, subsidies, norms and standards, process and production methods, intellectual property rights, government procurement, services regulation et cetera, to name but a few. The main goals of climate change policy, on the other hand, are about environmental protection, sustainable development, and the preservation of ecosystems. To achieve these goals, climate change law uses the following policy tools across international law: trade policy tools, funding programs, taxes, permissions, prohibitions, international standards, and financial instruments.This paper advocates the importance of involving major greenhouse gas (GHG) emitters through large preferential trade agreements (PTAs), such as the Trans-Pacific Partnership and the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership, with strong climate change chapters and through economic partnership agreements as avenues to mitigate GHG emissions. PTAs have become a necessity because of the stagnation of the multilateral trading system. The question is how to persuade countries to be parties to climate-based PTAs, and economic incentives for parties are a possibility. Regional trade arrangements could be designed to provide for an attractive package to settle trade-offs and conflicts of interest as well as facilitate the ultimate goal of creating a global climate regime. In proposing climate solutions through trade agreements, the paper also tries to stimulate non-Annex I countries to GHG emissions reduction. Trade mechanisms can be an effective tool for securing environmental objectives. A regional approach seems more realistic than aiming for a global climate agreement. Both approaches (regional and global) share the objective of creating a strong international framework for climate action. However, they differ on how to achieve the goal.

Better information on greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and mitigation potential in the agricultural sector is necessary to manage these emissions and identify responses that are consistent with the food security and economic development priorities of countries. Critical activity data (what crops or livestock are managed in what way) are poor or lacking for many agricultural systems, especially in developing countries. In addition, the currently available methods for quantifying emissions and mitigation are often too expensive or complex or not sufficiently user friendly for widespread use.The purpose of this focus issue is to capture the state of the art in quantifying greenhouse gases from agricultural systems, with the goal of better understanding our current capabilities and near-term potential for improvement, with particular attention to quantification issues relevant to smallholders in developing countries. This work is timely in light of international discussions and negotiations around how agriculture should be included in efforts to reduce and adapt to climate change impacts, and considering that significant climate financing to developing countries in post-2012 agreements may be linked to their increased ability to identify and report GHG emissions (Murphy et al 2010, CCAFS 2011, FAO 2011).

38119MetricsTotal Downloads381Last 6 Months33Last 12 Months89Total Citations19Last 6 Months0Last 12 Months0View all metrics

Co-Existence, Complementarity or Conflict? Interaction between Preferential Trade and Investment Agreements and Bilateral Investment Treaties

The most remarkable evolution in the field of international investment law is undoubtedly the massive proliferation of Bilateral Investment Treaties (BITs) and Preferential Trade Agreements (PTAs), either in the form of Free Trade Agreements (FTAs) of Custom Unions (CUs). PTAs increasingly, as will be pointed out, contain provisions on the liberalization and/or protection of foreign investment, and may then be referred to as Preferential Trade and Investment Agreements (PTIAs). PTAs differ substantially in terms of the extent to which they cover investment. Agreements in the area of trade and investment either contain explicit provisions on the protection, and possibly the liberalization of foreign investment, or are aimed essentially at the regulation of trade in services and/or goods, in which case the provisions on investment are usually less extensive than in the former or even completely absent. BITs and modern PTAs which include investment protection (and liberalization) provisions, which may then be categorized as PTIAs, follow the first approach, and thus contain extensive provisions on both the liberalization and the protection of foreign investment (PTIAs), while the majority of the traditional PTAs follow the second approach, containing only a framework or framework provisions committing to further liberalization, protection and promotion of investment. This contribution aims to analyze the interrelationship between the network of bilateral investment treaties and PTIAs with respect to the protection of foreign investment. In doing so, this contribution will examine the differences in the content and rationale of PTIAs as compared to BITs, and in particular how substantive investment protection and investment dispute settlement are dealt with in PTIAs and BITs. Finally, this contribution will address whether conflicts between PTIAs and BITs are possible, and if so, how these conflicts may be addressed.

Climate Change (CC) paired with the rapidly growing world population call for new approaches to land management that are both sustainable and accommodate the complex interactions between social systems and environment. To this end, it is important not only to mitigate CC by reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, but also to adapt to the changing environmental conditions Agriculture, forestry and other land uses are responsible for almost a quarter (24%) of global anthropogenic GHG emissions (IPCC, 2014) and hence have a high potential for both CC mitigation and adaptation. Additionally agriculture and forests coexist in the same landscape and are deeply interlinked. Agriculture is central in CC discourses not only because it`s the largest driver of deforestation and forest degradation (Hosonuma, 2012) but also because it`s the sector that is highly impacted by CC, which most often results in a decline in agriculture yield. This highlights the need of innovation towards adaptive agriculture, entailing higher production with fewer inputs. Forests are important because they play a major role in CC mitigation, via carbon storage in their biomass, and in providing ecosystem services that are crucial for agriculture, such as water, pollination and control of pests and diseases. The recognition of interlinkages amongst forests, agriculture and other land uses led to a new line of thinking: the "Climate--Smart Landscape" (CSL) approach (Scherr et al., 2012; CSL is an integrated, landscape--level approach that widens the scope from the farm level to the landscape level, allowing analyses of landscape dynamics that lead to deforestation and assess the trades--off between land uses "Landscape" is defined here in broad conceptual terms: rather than being simply a physical space, it represents a complex system with mutually interacting social, biophysical, human ecological and economic dimensions Additionally, CSL emphasizes stakeholder involvement and simultaneous achievement of multiple objectives (Sunderland, 2012) including food security, Ecosystem conservation, rural livelihoods, CC mitigation and adaptation. The transition to CSL relies upon effective policies and the involvement of stakeholders in different layers of governance, such as policy makers, local farmers, researchers, NGOs and agribusiness companies. Additionally, effective CSL rely upon communication and social learning among these stakeholders. It`s based upon national policies that take into account drivers of deforestation and forest degradation (DD) and upon regional policies that take into account how local stakeholders make land use decisions: without such understanding policies are unlikely to be effective. Moreover, a shift towards CSL relies upon the organization aspect of innovation: CSA adoption, as any other innovation is not only based upon technical knowledge, but also social learning and social organization. Such learning also contributes to promote adaptive capacity, which is based upon continuous learning by doing and trial and error. Additionally CSL can be supported by collective action: a shift towards CSL cannot be achieved by a single individual but it relies upon collaboration among different stakeholders. Despite the interlinkages of forests and agriculture and their role in CC mitigation and adaptation, these sectors have been managed by different initiatives in the policy arena. In particular, two initiatives gained attention to enable CC adaptation and mitigation. The first one is the United Nations Collaborative initiative on Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and forest Degradation, conservation of forest carbon stocks, sustainable management of forests and enhancement of carbon stocks (REDD+). REDD+ is a potentially powerful vehicle for stimulating developing countries to practise mitigation by reducing GHG emissions and also to implement adaptation measures through sustainable forest management. REDD+ incorporates safeguards as well, such as requirements for transparency, participation, protection of biodiversity and the rights of local people (UNFCCC, 2011). The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) emphasizes that co--benefits should be promoted while implementing REDD+ and that 'the needs of local and indigenous communities should be addressed' (UNFCCC, 2007: 8). Although REDD+ is increasingly acknowledging the importance to address drivers of DD, its emphasis is mainly on CC mitigation and forest preservation rather than CC adaptation. The second one is Climate Smart Agriculture (CSA) initiative, initiated by FAO with the aim of achieving the triple wins of CC mitigation, adaptation and food security. CSA involves the use of 'climate--smart' farming techniques to produce crops or livestock, which could help lowering deforestation for agricultural use as well as enhancing productivity, build resilience to CC and mitigate the GHG emissions (Meybeck, 2013). Although CSA represents a step forward towards greater integration of adaptation and mitigation, its emphasis in practice is mainly on agricultural goals and CC adaptation (Graham, 2012) rather than on CC mitigation goals.

A major aim of the international community is to decarbonize the economy. With renewables, international trade in energy is likely to increase. In turn, the international trading system can be a major vehicle towards moving away from fossil fuels to renewable energy. To this end, it can provide fair competition, economies of scale and knowledge transfer. This article analyzes the impact of European Union (EU) preferential trade agreements (PTAs) in addressing climate change mitigation and energy security by promoting renewables. Currently, there is a proliferation of PTAs; this trend seems irreversible and is likely to persist, given the current crisis in the multilateral trading system. We argue that the EU can, through its network of PTAs, move towards greater energy independence as renewable energy becomes increasingly economically viable. This article provides a thorough review of the renewable energy-related provisions in the EU’s current PTAs and recommends three tangible ways through which the EU could capitalize its vast network of PTAs to boost the renewable energy market.

Introduction to <i>Climate Change Adaptation in New York City: Building a Risk Management Response</i>

Negotiating failure: understanding the geopolitics of climate change

Since the beginning of the 21st century we have witnessed a proliferation of Preferential Trade Agreements (PTAs) in Asia Pacific. China has been at the forefront of this development. Initially, China's PTAs were very shallow and mainly aimed at building friendly relationships with developing countries. However, over time, China has started to negotiate deeper PTAs with developing and developed countries alike. This notable shift has thus far been understood to result from four broad motivations: China's desire to access key export markets; the facilitation of regional production networks; to address resource security concerns; and/or to further geostrategic interests and political influence. We propose that these motives are not sufficient to fully account for China's new generation trade agreements. We suggest that China is increasing its integration into the world economy to push for domestic marketization and reform by credibly committing to trade liberalization through PTAs. Deep and comprehensive PTAs oblige a country to follow a set of rules that leave little leeway to violate the terms. In order to successfully implement and enforce PTA commitments, China has also gradually strengthened its regulatory state by investing in regulatory capacity and capability in the field of trade policy. We test the plausibility of our argument through an in‐depth analysis of the PTAs signed by China since 2000 and find evidence that China's PTAs are indeed in part driven by a desire to lock in domestic economic reform, which has gone hand in hand with a strengthening of its regulatory state.

The proliferation of preferential trade agreements (PTAs) and the wave of democratization are among the most significant developments in international relations during the past three decades. The correlation between these is well noted. The causal link between these phenomena, however, remains unclear. On one hand, democracies have been found to be more likely to join PTAs. On the other hand, trade agreements should foster democratization because they undermine the ability of governments to distribute rents to maintain an autocratic regime. If PTAs and democracy coevolve through a selection and a contagion effect, then conventional statistical techniques can produce wholly misleading results. This article presents a new approach based on recent advancements in longitudinal network analysis. Our findings confirm that historically, democratization indeed made states more likely to sign PTAs, but that trade agreements also encourage the democratization of a country, in particular if the PTA partners are themselves democracies.

Oil extraction emits considerable amounts of greenhouse gases (GHG), which is the main driver of climate change, as GHG emissions trap heat in the atmosphere and contribute significantly to global warming and climate change phenomena. Climate change is a crucial challenge facing the globe that requires urgent and coordinated action from all countries. The United Nations took the lead in addressing climate change and its consequences, through various conventions, agreements and initiatives. The most important ones are the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), the Kyoto Protocol, and the Paris Agreement. The Paris Agreement aims to limit global warming to well below 2°C above pre-industrial levels, and pursue efforts to limit it to 1.5°C. In this endeavor, Egypt is committed to share in the implementation of climate actions. Accordingly, Egypt has prepared a national sustainable development strategy (Egypt Vision 2030) in alignment with the global agenda of the sustainable development goals (SDGs) and the Paris Agreement on climate change. The vision has set various indicators and targets to measure the progress of implementation, in which the target of increasing the share of renewable energy in electricity production to 37% by 2030 is proposed to limit the impact of climate change. Most recently, Egypt has organized the Conference of Parties (COP 27) in Sharm el-Sheikh with the aim of discussing and taking action regarding the implementation of the Paris Agreement and the progress of achieving SDGs. One of the main results of COP 27 is to call for accelerating the deployment of renewable energy resources. In that context and being aware of the climate change impacts potentially resulting from the operations of their assets, PetroFarah (PF) in a joint venture with Apex International Energy, and with the support of the Egyptian Petroleum Company (EGPC), has initiated a pilot project to utilize solar energy in the artificial pumping of oil in one of its operating wells. The project entailed the installation of a PV solar unit with a capacity of 72.9 kW, without a battery system, to operate a sucker rod pump (SRP) at Farah-8 well. The main aim of the project is to reduce the diesel consumption utilized in the diesel generator at the well location and subsequently, reduce the GHG emissions associated with the operation of the diesel generator. Calculations of GHG emissions from the pilot project indicated that implementing the PV solar project could save about 44% of generators’ diesel consumption at well sites and subsequently 44% of GHG emissions resulting from the emissions of these generators. It should be pointed out that these results should be taken with caution, as the studied well is a small producer using a Sucker Rod Pump (SRP) working at a slow round per minute (RPM), while other wells may be working at different RPMs resulting in different fuel consumption. Also, the estimated GHG reduction is for one type of oil pumping system, which is SRP, and this case study could not be generalized for other types of pumps such as electrostatic submersible pumps (ESP). The estimated GHG reduction is based on the daily and annual consumption and production data obtained from 2022 data, which could be subject to change with the variation in production. The estimated GHG reduction is also based on the operation of the PV solar unit during the daytime, as the current setting does not include a battery for operating during night-time. Accordingly, the installation of a battery system may further reduce Scope 1 GHG emissions. Moreover, the efficiency of the diesel generator and power transmission is not taken as a factor in the provided estimate. Accordingly, variable savings could be obtained from the different diesel generators / SRPs connections depending on their efficiency. Overall, the pilot project was found to have the potential to have a net reduction of 0.5 kg CO2 eq. for each barrel of oil produced (bop) which is equivalent to approximately 50 tons of CO2 eq. for each 100,000 bop.

Shogren is the Stroock Distinguished Professor of Natural Resource Conservation and Management at the University of Wyoming. In 1997, he served as the senior economist for environmental policy at the President's Council of Economic Advisers during the runup to Kyoto. In the 1992 United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), most countries agreed to voluntarily reduce their greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by the turn of the 20th century (UNFCCC, 1999a). By the mid-1990s, policy makers and scientists realized that the majority of the voluntary pledges were not being met. The international community responded by increasing the pressure to formulate country-specific binding commitments to reduce emissions. The end result was the Kyoto Protocol (UNFCCC, 1999b). The protocol set targets and timetables for emission reductions; an Annex I Parties (industrialized and transition economies) is to reduce net GHG emissions by about 5% below 1990 levels by 2008–2012. Article 25 of the protocol says the agreement will enter into force 90 days after it has been ratified (or approved, accepted, or acceded to) by at least 55 parties to the convention, including Annex I Parties, accounting for 55% of the group's 1990 carbon dioxide emissions. As of May 2004, the Kyoto Protocol had not entered into force. The delay is caused in part by the lack of commitment by the United States, Australia, and Russia, and with the expected increase in GHG emissions growth driven by increasing economic growth in developing nations like China and India, the emission reductions needed to comply with Kyoto will be substantial. The Kyoto Protocol might go into force, and people still want to know for what benefit, at what cost, and who wins and who loses? Herein, we briefly review the past, present, and future of the Kyoto Protocol from an economist's benefit-cost perspective. To an …

The land use, land use change and forestry (LULUCF) sector is a greenhouse gas (GHG) inventory sector that covers the emissions of GHGs from and their removal by terrestrial carbon stocks, living biomass, dead organic matter and soil organic carbon according to six main anthropogenic land use categories: Forest land, Cropland, Grassland, Wetlands, Settlements, and Other land. According to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), all Parties shall periodically report an update inventory of anthropogenic emissions and removals of GHGs using comparable methodologies provided by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Parties are also required to report and account for such emissions under the Kyoto Protocol (KP). These emission inventories are then factored into an international reduction target commitment. In recent years, international negotiations have resulted in the adoption of new rules for the second commitment period of the KP (CP2: 2013-2020), e.g. mandatory accounting of Forest management. Furthermore, Decision 529/2013/EU goes beyond the international UNFCCC negotiations by adding the mandatory accounting of Cropland management and Grassland management. All these changes pose new challenges that Member States (MS) will need to address from 2015 (i.e. the start of the CP2 reporting period). This report describes the actions undertaken in the context of the JRC’s “LULUCF MRV” (Monitoring, Reporting, and Verification) Administrative Arrangement with DG CLIMA, through a sequence of tasks (described in detail in the Annexes). The aim of the AA is to support MS in improving the quality and comparability of their LULUCF reporting during CP2, in line with IPCC methods and the new UNFCCC and EU rules. .