US vs EU Environmental Policy. Differences in Character and Effectiveness. Implications for Foreign Trade of Environmental Goods

Authors

  • Zofia Wysokińska

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.18778/1508-2008.9.01

Abstract

The aim of the paper is to present main similarities and differences between the US and EU environmental policy during the recent years and their impact on foreign trade in ecological products. The elimination of trade barriers also increases the efficiency of the world economic system by enabling countries to specialize in those sectors in which they possess economic advantages, which includes those sectors in which they possess favorable natural environmental conditions. In the latter half of the 1990’s one can observe a rapid and dynamic increase in the environmental protection industry’s share in the world economy. The overall global value of production in the environmental protection industry was estimated at 550 billion USD in the year 2001. In relative terms, this environmental market is not as big as the steel or agriculture markets, but roughly the same size as the pharmaceuticals and information technology markets It is estimated that the OECD countries (with special reference to USA and EU) possess 90% of the environmental protection industry. The environmental policy in the EU and US tried to contribute to the achievement of main goals of global sustainable development strategy by new market oriented economic and financial instruments during the recent years. Results of the empirical foreign trade analysis of environmental products presented in the paper cover 11 countries of the OECD including the USA and 7 EU members. It bases on international comparable database for environmental friendly goods calculated by the author according to the OECD requirements (OECD-EUROSTAT, WTO, 1999). The presentation of some important trends in foreign trade of main exporters and importers of environmental goods in the USA and the EU was the effect of this analysis. These analysis is related also to some regulations of the Committee for Trade and Environment of the WTO with special reference to conclusions of the Fourth and Fifth Ministerial Conferences in Doha and Cancun. The paper will also examine the effects of environmental measures on market access within the multilateral liberalization process and compare these effects for the USA and EU.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Barria, L. Cattafesta, C.,. Garrido, R, Pia Hernandez M.,. Vossenaar R, Environmental Goods and Services: Challenges and Opportunities for Central American and Caribbean Countries, [in:] Trade and Environment Review 2003, op.cit., article 3, pp. 61-91.

O’Brien P., Encouraging Environmentally Sustainable Growth in the United States, (OECD 2001), Economics Department Working Papers No. 278, ECO/WKP(2001)4, http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/38/41/1888654.pdf.

Commission's proposal to the Gothenburg European Council Commission of the EuropeannCommunities, Brussels, 15.5.2001; COM(2001)264 final.

Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament: Bringing our needs and responsibilities together – Integrating environmental issues with economic policy, COM(2000) 576 final, 20.9.2000.

Communication from the Commission to the Council, the European Parliament, the Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions On the sixth environment action program of the European Community 'Environment 2010: Our future, Our choice' – The Sixth Environment Action Program-COM/2001/0031 final.

Ditz, T,. Stern P.C, Exploring New Tools for Environmental Protection: Education, Information and Voluntary Measures, The National Academy of Sciences, (2002), http://www.nap.edu/openbook/0309084229/html/6.html.

Environmental Benefits of Removing Trade Restrictions and Distortions. Note by the Secretariat, Addendum, Committee on Trade and Environment. WT/CTE/W/67/ADD.1, 13 March 1998; Implications of WTO Agreements for International Trade in Environmental Industries, ITC, 1999, in: Trade and Environment Review 2003, United Nations, Geneva, New York, 2004, p. 36.

Environmental Goods and Services Industry – Manual for Data Collection and Analysis, (1999);OECD-EUROSTAT, WTO, Paris.

Environmental Goods and Services,: The Benefits of further Global Trade Liberalization, OECD, 2001.

EPA Programs, Policy Economics Innovation, http:/www.epa.gov.

Europejska wizja jakości (The European Vision of Quality), Wydawnictwo PCBiC, Warszawa, 2000.

Fifth European Community Environment Programme: towards sustainability (1998), http://www.europa.eu.int/scadplus/leg/en/lvb/l28062.htm.

Sixth Environment Action Programme of the European Community "Environment 2010: Our future, our choice" [COM (2001) 31 final.

Sorsa, P, Competitiveness and Environmental Standards, The World Bank Research Working Papers, February 1994.

A Sustainable Europe for a Better World: A European Union Strategy for Sustainable Development, Communication from the Commission (Commission's proposal to the Gothenburg European Council)/* COM/2001/0264 final*.

Trade and Environment Review 2003, United Nations, New York, Geneva, 2004.

Vikhlyaev, A., Environmental Goods and Services: Defining Negotiations or Negotiating Definitions?, [in:] Trade and Environment Review 2003, United Nations, New York, Geneva.

Walter I, The Pollution Content of American Trade, Western Economic Journal 11 (1).

Wysokińska Z., Adaptation to European and international ecological norms and standards in the Czech Republic, Hungary, and Poland, Ecological competitiveness of Polish enterprises – results of a questionnaire research, IT&FA Proceedings, Bangkok, 2000.

Xinpeng Xu, Liang Song, Regional Cooperation and the Environment: Do “Dirty” Industries Migrate?, Weltwirtscaftlisches Archiv, Band 136, 2000 r.

Downloads

Published

2006-06-30

Issue

Section

Articles

How to Cite

Wysokińska, Zofia. 2006. “US Vs EU Environmental Policy. Differences in Character and Effectiveness. Implications for Foreign Trade of Environmental Goods”. Comparative Economic Research. Central and Eastern Europe 9 (1-2): 5-27. https://doi.org/10.18778/1508-2008.9.01.

Most read articles by the same author(s)

1 2 3 4 > >>