Since early autumn 2018, the issue of reforming the World Trade Organization (WTO) has become an increasingly visible item on the global economic agenda. It was one of the central questions posited in the final communique of the G20 Summit that took place in Buenos Aires on November 30 – December 1, and the parties intend to tackle it again at the next meeting in Tokyo.
The WTO is traditionally considered the third institution of the Bretton Woods system. However, while the first two – the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development (IBRD) – started functioning shortly after the end of World War II, it took 47 years of excruciating negotiations to create the third part, a universal trade organization. The establishment of the WTO in April 1994 following the Uruguay Round of negotiations (1986–1993) should rightly be considered the greatest event in economic relations in the 20th century. However, the tremendous success had a certain reverse side: contradictions and issues between member countries remained. This predetermined the future need to reform the WTO.
Trade Wars are a Signal for Action
The problem of the institutional reform of the WTO has been discussed at the level of experts for at least the last 15 years. However, it has never gone beyond the scope of an academic discussion, and for serious reasons too. The older generation of trade diplomats and experts remembers all too well the excruciating negotiations at the Uruguay Round, which were accompanied by crippling crises and contradictions between the parties. Hammering out compromises was a Herculean task, and the agreement on establishing the WTO crowned those compromises.
It is precisely because of these features of the WTO’s protracted birth that representatives of various countries, recognizing the need to reform the organization, were fully cognizant of how difficult and risky such a reform will be in practice. That is why each and every time discussions ended the same way: the GATT/WTO system has been functioning for 70 years, and even though it has its problems, no one can guarantee that a reform will not make things worse. Nowadays, the situation has been noticeably radicalized due to the new U.S. protectionist policies and the trade wars it started “with the entire world.”
The Administration of the 45th US President has embarked upon a course of open criticism and attacks on universal trade rules. In late February 2017, the United States Trade Representative (USTR) delivered the Trade Policy Agenda and Annual Report to Congress. The document emphasized that given the “unfair trade practices” of other countries, the United States can disregard the WTO rules and conduct a more “aggressive” trade policy in protecting its national interests.
On June 1, 2018, Washington imposed increased import tariffs on metals from the European Union, Canada and some other countries to 25 per cent for steel and 10 per cent for aluminium. The current U.S. administration believes that domestic steel production has fallen sharply in the recent years, and this threatens national security. However, Europe and Canada see the legal justification for Washington to increase tariffs as being completely unacceptable.
Partners Reject U.S. Protectionist Measures
Within the WTO, each country has its commitments based on the rules developed during the Uruguay Round. These rules allow import restrictions in three very specific situations: in cases of dumping; the use of illegal subsidies; and if there is a threat to national industries due to a sharp increase in imports. In each case, the damage from the above-stated actions of a supplier country must be substantiated. The damage is assessed in the course of an appropriate transparent investigation that involves all the parties. The current U.S. measures do not fit into any of these scenarios, and instead it is being justified by “reasons of national security.” This, however, gives the matter an entirely different legal twist.
The WTO legal framework does stipulate restricting market access for reasons of national security: appropriate measures are possible in cases of illegal trade in weapons and nuclear materials, the danger of armed conflicts, a terrorist threat, etc. Therefore, in such cases, every state itself determines the measures for restricting access to its market under Article XXI of GATT, which is devoted entirely to “reasons of national security.” The difficulty with applying Article XXI of GATT is that its application mechanism is still not quite specific; a state that introduces restrictions under this article acts as the ultimate judge in the dispute.
The United States offers a very subjective formulation of “reasons of national security” that is clearly detached from the current international rules. Washington sees a threat to national security in the sharp drop in domestic metal production, even though such a situation is essentially a consequence of regular international competition.
European countries and Canada were shocked by the fact that the United States imposes tariffs against them out of “reasons of national security.” As the President of the European Commission Jean-Claude Juncker emphasized, “these unilateral U.S. tariffs are unjustified and at odds with World Trade Organization rules. This is protectionism, pure and simple.” President of France Emmanuel Macron called the U.S. administration’s decision illegal and mistaken. Prime Minister of Canada Justin Trudeau spoke rather sharply at the June 2018 G7 Summit in Quebec calling Washington’s measures “punitive,” “unacceptable” and “insulting.”
Following repeated attempts to convince Washington that its protectionist measures were unfounded, in late November 2018, the European Union, along with China, Canada, Norway, Mexico, Russia and Turkey, and then India and Switzerland filed a complaint against the United States with the WTO’s Appellate Body concerning the illegality of the steel and aluminium tariffs imposed by the United States. In the complaint, the plaintiffs intend to challenge the U.S. tariffs as protective and simultaneously prove that the United States cannot invoke reasons of national security. This demarche against the United States by nine countries at once is a rather convincing proof that the WTO’s leading members are resisting Washington’s attempts to revise the existing rules of international trade.
Thus, the U.S. administration believes that it can protect its domestic market and ensure its foreign trade interests on the basis of its domestic trade legislation. Over the course of 2018, Washington primarily invoked two legislative acts. Under the Trade Act of 1974, the United States can impose penalty tariffs on countries that discriminate against American goods. The second is the 1962 Trade Expansion Act that allows the United States to restrict import of goods that would “threaten to impair the national security.” This act served as a legal justification for Washington to increase import tariffs on steel and aluminium starting June 1, 2018.
Europe, Canada and Japan believe that using legal acts that are over 50 years old is odd at the very least, since in the intervening decades, international economic regulations have changed drastically, the principal change being the emergence of a full-fledged multilateral regulation institution, i.e. the WTO, which was to a great degree promoted by the United States. Strictly speaking, the moment the WTO became operative in January 1995, the United States did not invoke the provisions of those domestic acts since it believed itself to be bound, like other WTO members, by the WTO’s commitments.
Every Side has its Arguments on Reforming the WTO
In March 2018, the United States Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer presented the latest version of the U.S. administration’s annual agenda in trade policies. The agenda concerns such issues as reforming the WTO, trade agreements with other countries and the application of U.S trade laws. The document is critical of the trade policies of previous administrations and simultaneously claims to reach a qualitatively new level in trade policies under the Trump administration.
Lighthizer’s report states that the U.S. administration is dissatisfied with the existing rules and their application in such areas as labour conditions, competition policies and the medical equipment market. It notes the investigations of U.S. officials into China’s violations of U.S. intellectual property rights. In essence, the report justifies instances of applying U.S. trade laws from the 1960s–1970s in order to protect national security interests, which cannot but cause concerns, since these laws are applied separately from the WTO rules and the commitments that the United States has undertaken as part of the organization.
As for the current multilateral negotiations at the Doha Round, Washington has specific grievances in that area, which may be considered justified to a certain extent. For instance, the United States is not satisfied with their highly stilted character, the impossibility of achieving new agreements other than at the biennial WTO ministerial conferences, and what the United States views as the outdated agenda of the Doha Round.
What is more, in recent years, the United States has not hidden its displeasure with the position of a large group of countries within the WTO which, having joined the organization as developing countries, continue to see themselves as such today, despite the fact that they have made significant progress in a number of economic sectors and even outstripped certain developed countries. In addition to this, many developing countries have non-transparent trade policies. Consequently, those WTO members de facto use privileges that Washington deems to be unjustified, which blocks progress in developing new WTO rules and also impedes further liberalization. This is the essence of Washington’s approach to reforming the WTO: eliminate unjustified and unfair privileges held by a group of developing countries that today essentially paralyse the multilateral trade system.
As for the other major player in international trade – the European Union – it has assumed a highly proactive stance on the issue of reforming the WTO. The European Union was the first to publish a list of specific proposals (a concept) on reforming the WTO. Analysing the entire list is rather a task for trade policy experts. It would therefore be appropriate to single out the key points. Even though the European Union’s stance was originally a direct consequence of the wrongfully protectionist measures of the United States towards European manufacturers, the document contains no direct or indirect complaints against Washington, which is largely reasonable, since reforming one of the key institutions of global economic management is too grave an issue to start it by settling scores with an old trade partner.
Essentially, Brussels shares Washington’s position on the matter, as well as its grievances against that group of developing countries that has reached a rather high level of economic development, but has no wish to part with their previously gained privileges
The EU proposals also note that today’s discussions are frequently dominated by the opinion that global trade rules somehow impede trade and, therefore, developing countries need to be exempted from both current and future rules. In fact, today, the differences between developed and many developing countries are not quite as pronounced as they were 25 years ago, when the WTO was established, meaning that the above-mentioned opinion is fundamentally wrong. Obviously, some flexibility in enforcing the compliance of developing countries with the WTO rules should be preserved, but only in those cases where it is necessary. The proposals put forward by Brussels contain specific mechanisms for tackling this task.
The EU concept focuses heavily on modernizing the WTO’s Appellate Body, a crucial organ in the mechanism of resolving disputes within the WTO. The European Union’s stance on the matter was supported in November by Canada, India, Norway, New Zealand, Switzerland, Australia, South Korea, Iceland, Singapore, Mexico and China.
In its proposals on the Appellate Body, Brussels largely takes Washington’s grievances against its current functioning into account. In particular, the European Union proposes limiting the appeals term to 90 days, which had been stipulated earlier, yet the parties often failed to comply with the requirement.
The EU concept also contains a series of initiatives on bolstering the multilateral trade system and improving the efficiency of the WTO.
China, which has been striving to form a united front with other countries that condemn Washington’s protectionism, has also called for a reform of the WTO.
While supporting WTO reform, China has thus far limited its actions to fairly general statements, stressing that the importance and inviolability of the WTO’s basic principles and rules. It would seem that Beijing is unlikely to be unconditionally receptive of Washington’s demands that current privileges for developing countries in the WTO be abolished. In contrast, China will rather put forward the need to fight protectionism, which is a threat to free trade.
As for Russia, it wholeheartedly supports the idea of reforming the WTO. President Vladimir Putin and Minister of Economic Development Maxim Oreshkin recently declared this stance. Russia’s trade diplomacy has quite good positions to take an active part in the process.
In conclusion, we need to emphasize that the nascent process of reforming of the WTO cannot be simple and quick, since the list of problems is too variegated. Above, we have outlined only some of these problems. At a certain stage, the most difficult problem will likely be that of transforming the decision-making system. The consensus mechanism that has been in effect in the GATT/WTO for over 70 years clearly hampers decision-making today, as the organization boasts 164 member countries. However, abolishing this mechanism will not be easy either. This is probably the main challenge to the incipient WTO reform.
First published in our partner RIAC
Connectivity now. Boosting flows of people, information, energy, goods and services
On April 8, St Petersburg hosted the 12th Northern Dimension Forum. This forum, established in 2007, is a major annual corporate business event for cooperative policy and brings business directors and potential investors from Russia and the European Union including the Baltics, and Scandinavia.
The forum was organized by the Northern Dimension Business Council in cooperation with the Association of European Businesses, the Graduate School of Management at St Petersburg State University and the Skolkovo Moscow School of Management.
This forum was devoted to the theme: “Connectivity now. Boosting flows of people, information, energy, goods and services.” It was attended by over 400 representatives of Russian and foreign business circles, government agencies and scientific, education and non-governmental organizations.
Leading business experts of the partnerships of the Northern Dimension, the Institute and the Association of European Businesses discussed topical issues and opportunities for promoting cooperation in environmental protection, the circular economy, energy efficiency, transport and logistics, healthcare digitization, efforts to overcome the aftereffects of the coronavirus pandemic and creative industries.
As expected, the forum helps to take another major step forward in discussing many strategic spheres of business between Russia and those regions. There were plenary meetings as well as sessions working groups. Despite the contradictory signals between Russia and the European Union, it was another opportunity to have some fruitful dialogue, especially in the current difficult conditions, – develop solutions on a wide range of cooperation issues in the North of Europe.
On the other hand, business institutions and the entire system of economic relations are still evolving for these years, indicating that there is no alternative to reasonable cooperation. It is however necessary to find common business language in the fields and other spheres of crucial importance for international cooperation.
Russian Foreign Ministry’s report pointed out to a diversified and multifaceted nature of regional cooperation in Northern Europe. It said the important components include the programs of cross-border and interregional cooperation between Russia and EU countries (Poland, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, Finland and Sweden), plus Norway.
There are programs underway within the framework of the current budget cycle that involves over 500 Russian project partners, and new programs are being prepared for the next seven-year period.
They reaffirmed their willingness to broaden versatile and mutually beneficial cooperation for the sustainable development of Europe. It emerged from a number of reports during the forum that trade and economic relations are now remarkably expanding between the European Union and Russia.
Over the years, the business growth has been driven by the efforts of the business community. This has also to do with the quality of economic exchanges and investment, businesses’ interest in expanding to new markets, and their confidence that these markets provide drivers for economic growth. Admittedly, trade decreased for various reasons since 2013, it then reached $417 billion, but later shrank to a mere $200 billion.
North Macedonia’s Journey to the EU
Prime Minister Zoran Zaev’s new cabinet is confronted with a number of economic challenges, exacerbated by the economic hit to the global economy caused by the pandemic In 2021, North Macedonia will take economic decisions that will shape the course of the country’s future.
The issues Skopje faces
Despite a modest population of 2-million, North Macedonia repeatedly makes headlines, often due to apparently intractable disputes with neighbouring countries. Athens’s trade embargo imposed on North Macedonia in the 1990s marked the start of a 27 year deadlock between the two countries, which ultimately stalled North Macedonia’s accession to the EU. Only recently did Skopje resolve the dispute with neighbouring Greece over its official name which Greece had previously taken issue with due to the fact that ‘Macedonia’ is also a region of Greece, and the use of this name was interpreted by Greece to be an assertion of territorial ambitions in the region.
This dispute affected the country’s other diplomatic ventures. In 1999, North Macedonia was one of the first post-Yugoslav signatories of the NATO membership action plan, only to have its accession vetoed by Greece in 2008. Ultimately, North Macedonia’s Stabilization and Association Agreement with the EU has not been the diplomatic catalyst that Skopje hoped would ease localised tensions and draw it into a closer relationship with Brussels.
Under the leadership of Nikola Gruveski (2006-2016), corruption and state capture were endemic in North Macedonia. Gruveksi was averse to opening negotiations with mainstream governments in Greece and it was not until the centre-left Social Democratic Union of Macedonia ousted Gruveski out of power, that there was a breakthrough. Gruveski’s successor, Zoran Zaev, capitalised on Greek Prime Minister Tsipras’s reformism to broker the controversial Prespa Agreement which settled the name dispute. Two years later, North Macedonia was finally admitted to NATO, demonstrating that Greece was the final hurdle to NATO membership.
A tamed economy
However, North Macedonia soon found that NATO membership was not a passport to joining the EU. Internal ethnic tensions have created friction with EU member states. Relations with Bulgaria soured during the election campaign for July 2020 during which the campaigns of both main political parties played on anti-Bulgarian sentiment..Zaev managed to gain power by agreeing to a coalition with the main part of the Albanian minority. The new cabinet’s economic hurdles, specifically fiscal redistribution, could be exacerbated by renewed ethnic tensions between the Slav majority and the Albanian minority. Should tensions reach the levels of the 2001 civil conflict, the deepening of this fracture would slow down reforms and deter investments.
Bouncing back after the fall
The Balkan countries suffered greatly during the Great Recession due to their proximity to the Greek economy at a time when Athens navigated the worst slowdown of recent history. As Greece’s second largest export partner, the RNM was particularly hard hit(Figure 3a). The region had barely entered recovery before lockdown measures crippled world economic growth
. In addition, North Macedonia’s small internal market is heavily reliant on external demand which the crisis has depleted. In Q1-Q2 2020, exports fell by 22.3% and industrial production by 14.6% compared to the same period of the previous year. Thus, GDP fell by 14.9% in Q2 of 2020 and another 3.3% in Q3 contrary to the projected 3.2 percent growth (Figure 7). Whilst forecasts suggest growth of 5.5% in 2021, the unpredictability of the pandemic’s economic influence may yet compromise this figure.
Meanwhile, rating agencies downgraded North Macedonia’s national debt, in turn raising financing costs. the RNM’s debt was downgraded by some rating agencies, raising financing costs. Fitch, the American credit rating agency, as well as Moody’s, another US-based credit rating agency, both value North Macedonia’s debt as a non-recommended investment asset to be reserved for short-term gain. Since May 2020 the outlook has been negative, suggesting the situation will worsen. Yet, with one of the comparatively smallest debt-GDPs of the region, these ratings are still the best in South-Eastern Europe after Bulgaria meaning the RNM has a relatively solid economic base (Figure 4).
The country’s effective response to the pandemic is in part the reason that North Macedonia is economically stronger than some of its neighbours. The caretaker government introduced a furlough scheme, worth approximately 5.5 percent of GDP, as well as a helicopter money initiative. Going forward, the government is prioritising policies that will stimulate economic growth such as slashing parafiscal charges and cutting VAT. Yet, since North Macedonia lacks the economic resources to commit to long-term reform, recovery will be slow.
North Macedonia’s Shifting Demographics
North Macedonia is contending with mass emigration in tandem with declining fertility rates (Figure 5) — both of which reduce human capital. The official estimate of two-million residents is dubitable, with some experts hypothesising an actual figure of approximately 1.5 million. Inaccurate projections of a state’s total population jeopardises effective government decision making. In the RNM, where the resources are redistributed amongst ethnic groups pro quota, this makes fiscal management particularly difficult. If, for example, the proportion of Albanians of the total population was lower than estimated, then this group will be receiving more public resources that they are entitled to.
Given that the EU acts in a starkly-protectionist way by restricting trade with third countries, greater cooperation is in the RNM’s interest. In fact, Brussels could reduce trade barriers in the context of a stronger association with Skopje even before the latter formally joins the Union.
There are steps the government can take to encourage citizens not to emigrate . The first and most crucial step would be to improve the education system. Overall, North Macedonia spends much less of its GDP than the average EU country on education. As a result, few people complete their secondary-level education, and therefore either end up in low-paying jobs or unemployed, andare forced to emigrate. Another step would be investment in the underfunded Research and Development (R&D) sector. In fact, North Macedonia’s budget allocates only 0.36% of GDP to R&D, compared to an EU average of 2.2% and neighbouring Bulgaria’s 0.77%. Research and development is essential to creating high-paying jobs, driving productivity, and boosting the economy through innovation and market competition.
Infrastructures as the drive for future growth
The silver lining in North Macedonia’s economic strategy is infrastructure development. This especially true for roads and highways. Grueveski’s administration was instrumental in the investment into road infrastructure, starting works for two new highways in 2014.
Still, roads can be rather useless if they do lead nowhere. Thus come trade infrastructures. In addition to new road, the building of new border checkpoints and crossing points with Greece and Bulgaria, will bolster the trade infrastructure that North Macedonia shares with the EU, thereby driving trade with a global economic powerhouse. These investments will also reduce the RNM’s dependence on the Yugoslav-time north-south arteries, which currently present a barrier for the development of the “functioning market economy” that is a requirement for EU membership. To achieve this goal, the RNM needs to improve, road connections towards the west (with Albania) and the east (with Bulgaria, an important trading partner). Building better connections within the country and with non-Yugoslav neighbours will boost the country’s internal cohesion by making it easier to move from one part of the country to another proving supplemental infrastructures to foster international trade.
Figure 6 Highways represent a key segment of the RNM’s investments.
A secondary and related benefit of improving connectedness with EU trade routes is reduced economic dependence on Russia. This should reduce Moscow’s potential diplomatic leverage in future disputes in the region. As a matter of fact, pulling out of Moscow’s orbit is almost a precondition to full membership in the EU — which would bring in more funding opportunity and increase financial stability. Yet, Russia’s main asset is not trade tout court, but energy. In fact, the Balkans serve as a strategic crossroad for oil and gas coming from Moscow and Baku through Bucharest and Ankara. Thus, North Macedonia should also consider developing its energy infrastructure as a route to closer integration with the EU. In order to reduce the Western Balkan’s dependence on Russian fossil fuels, the region needs investments. For cash-strapped countries, like North Macedonia, the opportunity to make real progress in this field may come from ‘green’ funds the EU has earmarked for energy projects in both current member states and candidate countries . In addition, Greece has established an LNG terminal on the Aegean to which links the RNM is planning to adjoin its grid. There are also talks of an electric-grid link to Albania, through which the RNM could import as much as needed and even export eventual surpluses.
Forecast: The RNM can make it… with some help
Without radical reform, the extant corruption, bureaucracy and public-sector inefficiency will stymy growth in the coming years. Luckily, the EU might be the answer to Skopje’s economic woes. The Union is expected to grant €3.3 billion to Western-Balkan countries to kickstart economic recovery following the pandemic. The package does however come with strings attached: the country will have to accelerate progress towards regulatory harmonisation with the EU. This is a notoriously difficult and resource-consuming task, which may hinder other reforms.
Furthermore, North Macedonia must confront pre-pandemic economic struggles. The government could revert to coalition infightings and therefore prolong the process of economic reform. For investors, a cautious approach is recommended, in preparation for positive economic developments.
Acknowledgments The Author thanks Charlotte Millington, parliamentary researcher at the UK House of Commons specialising in European politics and international security for her suggestions.
How to incorporate the environment in economic ventures for a sustainable future?
We are in the phase of world history where economic development and protection of environment must go side by side. People living in the developed part of the world will hardly want to give up their current lifestyle and people living in the developing part want to be more like the developed but in this process, we cannot separate environment from economy. Environment provides the incentive for economic growth and prosperity; providing the raw materials and resources we need for production of goods, certain climates and temperatures are required for the growth of specific plants and are very crucial to agriculture industry and the environment is what absorbs the pollution and waste we produce from all this industrialization. Protection of the environment means we mark ourselves safe from economic degradation and provide safe space for healthy functioning of economic and social activities. If we preserve the environment we control the risks of drought, heat waves, cold spells and floods, regulate the air quality, the temperature, the climate, the clean supply of water, the contamination of soil, cycling of nutrients in the ecosystem and management of carbon. Since agriculture can be regarded as the primary industry, crucial to feed people, people who then operate other industries, it is very important to safeguard the environment that feeds us and nurtures us and the environment that we live and grow in. Today, the world economy is facing serious environmental hazards. Climate change, loss of biodiversity and ecosystems are some of the global problems that need immediate collective action by states since this issue engulfs the whole of mankind. Therefore, economists and environmentalists have in the recent years taken this subject with full zest. How can economic growth and environmental protection go hand in hand? Environmental policies integrated with economic policies can be implemented and pursued by states to ensure sustained and prolonged environmental human well-being and continued simultaneous economic growth for states both at the national and international level, ending in a win-win situation.
Natural resources are salient to economic development but at present many prime resources and ecosystems are depleting which poses a grave situation for states and their economies. To tackle this concern, natural resources need to be used in a reasonable manner and adopting and improving technology be propagated in such a way that the use of natural resources is made more efficient and long lasting. Use of newer and modern product designing which meets the needs of the current times, needs to inculcated. The consumption of natural resources beyond the point that hampers economic growth also needs to be avoided. The vitality of technology and innovation in limiting environmental hazards is being stressed, this is also beneficial for businesses and industrialization. This is because preservation of environment is itself a form of economic development and growth. People who come up with the ideas and engineering for environmental friendly products; such as the water and air pollution control, treatment and purification technologies, make money and businesses out of these services, thus contributing to the economy. Similarly, wind mills and solar systems are now a multimillion-dollar business themselves. If environment protection is putting some older technologies and practices out of work, it is also creating incentives for modern technologies and creating more job opportunities in the field. States should thus, make an industrial shift to equipment and products that have a low carbon usage and efficiently use resources. In the real estate sector, places with better and healthier environment and surroundings are priced more than other counterparts for example, a building next to a park or green belt will have higher value than a property which is not next to any place green. This points to the concept of “hedonic pricing.” It refers to the difference in pricing due to the associated environmental aspects, in otherwise similar products. Better environment also contributes to the development of human capital. The presence of a green park will not only add to beauty and better air quality but it will also encourage a lot of people to physically exercise.
Due to the growing scarcity of resources, governments of the world should introduce the policy of “common property regime,” which avers that resources such as land, water, certain habitats and the atmosphere be made common property for all. The problem is that there are no property laws for these resources and people use it as a free dump for human waste and waste products from economic activities. This includes various water bodies for example, irrigation systems and canals, forests, fishing areas etc. Concise and clearly enforced rules should be put in place, exercising the limits put on some activities such as excessive fishing or cutting of forests, putting a limit on the accessibility to these resources, keeping a check on the carbon footprint of some groups, organizations or events or even putting some specifications on their use such as tax or making recycling or reuse mandatory. The shift from already existing practices to newer ones that are more environment-friendly will be costly and it will take time but it is more important now than ever and more beneficial for us in the long run. Environment policies of these sorts reframe the economic structure. The cost of using these resources should be closed in according to the social cost of putting the health of the public at risk. Restructuring of the economic and environmental structure helps a country’s economy by lessening the environmental hazards that the country might face and by making the state more buoyant and resilient in the face of these environmental changes and risks. This can also prove to be a powerful driving force for innovations and ideas.
States are often in the race to increase their GDP. GDP only measures the material values of goods and services and does not take into account the well-being of humans including the health and education quality, living standards, income and environmental conditions. Economic growth, nonetheless, is a prime force for improving human well-being and states incorporate social, political and environmental goals in the well-being domain through these economic activities. The Kuznets curve is a graph to explain the relationship between the growth in economy/GDP and the quality of environment. States can keep this model in mind while reformulating their economic and environmental policies, in accordance to the history of environmental degradation they have endured and the future remodelling they need to follow. It is characterized by an inverted U-shaped relation between GDP per capita and environmental quality. Since we have already crossed the point for environmental degradation, it is now time to think for the decline in the degradation. Initially, when the GDP grows, so does the degradation of environment but after a certain point, the increase in GDP no longer degrades the environment further. This is because at lower income levels, the income is completely spent on meeting the basic survival requirements. When the income increases to a certain point, people and states should start thinking of the bargain that material does with the environment, this should be reflected in their behavioural change. After this point, states should start giving up further unnecessary consumption and focus more on environmental rehabilitation. Another possibility seen through this graph is that industries might see profit in enhancing production quickly, but as demands are met and resources become scarcer, more green, cleaner and resource efficient technology is introduced. Societies, in this way, also go from agriculture-based economy to manufacturing-based economy and finally to service-based economies, releasing the lowest levels of pollution. An example can be of EU rules and regulations. Waste water used to get dumped directly into the streams or rivers, but now it gets treated first before releasing. There are barely any housings left in the EU now that are not connected to solid and water waste disposal and treatment networks.
If states and the firms operating in those states take up eco-innovations and eco-friendly measures, they will actually be at advantage because investors like banks and various funding institutes are more likely to invest in sustainable businesses that will stay operational a long time, than those that are dependent on the environment in these challenging times. Firms that run on eco-friendly terms will also stay ahead of the taxes and regulations charged on using environmental resources. This will prove to be very cost efficient for them and they will not have to change their action plans according to any new regulations or increases in costs. Greener and cleaner practices and equipment can also truly reduce the waste an industry produces, in turn increasing the output and ensuring sustainability. This adaptation to cleaner practices can also lead to innovations and new ideas and practices starting right from the household or individual level. UK is one of the countries that is high on the ranks of eco-innovations, thanks to general understanding and cooperation among firms to pursue sustainable development. Furthermore, statistics show that companies that are currently focusing more eco-innovations are growing at the rate of 15% annually while their counterparts that are not focusing on the same, are not enjoying any climb in their profits. Most of these businesses (based in Europe) are small to medium scaled and they are adaptable in nature. They are benefitting from the European commission’s stance on promoting eco-friendly businesses. Public Relations advantages and marketing superiority is also pretty clear in eco-innovation ventures.
A commendable example of improving the environmental conditions while also not compromising on the GDP and economic development, is that of China. China has been time and again accused of having a huge carbon footprint, which directly impacts the ozone layer which is communal to all mankind. States that are not even at par with the fumes and industrial waste that China produces, are today in the list of states most affected by climate change and global warming, including Pakistan and many of the Gulf nations. China has thus taken the role of global leadership in the field of environmental protection. China has been standing true to its 2015 Paris agreements on cutting down of greenhouse emissions. It was able to do so by spreading awareness and education from the grass-root level. In the period of only a few years, China has drastically improved the air quality in many of its larger cities. Solid waste management and sorting is a major step taken to restrict illegal dumping of garbage. Restrictive policies and heavy fines are imposed if an individual breaks the rules. Renewable energy generators like the wind and solar panels, have been put to use to meet nationwide energy requirements, which ensures cost effective power. In the year 2017, China nationally introduced the concept of “National emissions trading system,” which formed a market for the buying and selling of carbon dioxide emissions allowances. It regulates the quantity of emissions and carbon footprints that an individual, firm or an event is allowed to produce. All of this simultaneously helps China to become more energy sufficient and assists economic reforms while also improving the quality of ground-level air. Some states in the USA are taking up the initiative of green or clean economy with full fervour. California for example, set a target to achieve carbon neutrality by the year 2045, while the clean energy sector is also opening opportunities for jobs. One of the incentive taken in the goal was stricter vehicle exhaust emission rules.Nevada also passed a legislation to increase the energy it makes to up to 50% through renewable energy sources, by the year 2030. Rules and regulations have also bene proposed to reduce the emission of harmful air pollutants including those that are short-lived such as methane, CFCs and HFCs. Developing countries like Pakistan have also addressed the climate issue and the Pakistan Premier launched the “Billion Tree Tsunami” plantation campaign to curb deforestation, an issue rampant in the north of the country. In conclusion of this paper, in light of all the examples and recommendations, I would say that the long term benefits, mutual to all, outweigh the costs of taking a leap from existing economic practices to those that are eco-friendlier.
“Eco-innovation for better business,” Business Green, accessed October 23, 2020, https://www.businessgreen.com/sponsored/2409410/eco-innovation-for-better-business
 “California Air Quality: Mapping the progress,” U.S News. November 6, 2019.https://www.usnews.com/news/healthiest-communities/articles/2019-11-06/california-air-quality-mapping-the-progress
Chandler Green. “7 ways US states are leading climate action,” United Nations Foundation. May 30, 2019, https://unfoundation.org/blog/post/7-ways-u-s-states-are-leading-climate-action/
Covid 19 and Human Security in Anthropocene era
Since the end of second World the focus on international security has grown, not only state threats but also threats...
Athletes knock the legs from under global sports governance
Sports governance worldwide has had the legs knocked out from under it. Yet, national and international sports administrators are slow...
Biden’s Dilemma: Caught Between Israel and Iran
By all indication, the latest sabotage at Iran’s uranium enrichment facility in Natanz aimed at more than just disabling thousands...
Pakistan and Germany are keen to Sustain Multifaceted and Mutually beneficial Cooperation
Pakistan has varied history of relationship and cooperation with other countries in international arena. Despite of proactive foreign policy Pakistan...
Disability policies must be based on what the disabled need
Diversity policies, especially when it comes to disabled people, are often created and implemented by decision makers with very different...
Preparing (Mega)Cities for the 2020s: An Innovative Image and Investment Diplomacy
Globalized megacities will definitely dominate the future, in the same way as colonial empires dominated the 19th century and nation-states...
The Galwan Conflict: Beginning of a new Relationship Dynamics
The 15th June, 2020 may very well mark a new chapter in the Indo-Chinese relationship and pave the way for...
East Asia3 days ago
Sino-US rivalry and the myth of Thucydides Trap
Europe3 days ago
Sino-Serbian relations under the “microscope”: China’s footprint In Serbia
Europe2 days ago
Ммm is a new trend in the interaction between the EU and Turkey:”Silence is golden” or Musical chair?
Reports2 days ago
Aviation Sector Calls for Unified Cybersecurity Practices to Mitigate Growing Risks
South Asia3 days ago
Modi’s Illiberal Majoritarian Democracy: a Question Mark on the Future of Indian Minorities
Europe2 days ago
The Man Who Warned Us First About Climate Change
East Asia2 days ago
The Galwan Conflict: Beginning of a new Relationship Dynamics
South Asia2 days ago
Pakistan and Germany are keen to Sustain Multifaceted and Mutually beneficial Cooperation