Sustainability impact assessments of free trade agreements

Moïsé, Evdokia; Rubínová, Stela

doi:10.1787/65b1a07e-en

Cited by 1 publication

(3 citation statements)

References 40 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The adoption of heterogeneous and lower MRLs in importing countries can potentially impose production costs domestically and on foreign suppliers. As such, stricter MRLs in importing countries are sometimes regarded as non-tariff trade barriers (Wilson and Otsuki, 2003[95]; Möhring et al, 2020 [49]). The net effect on competitiveness and the environment depends on domestic and foreign production systems, their trade position (net importers or net exporters), and their required use of the targeted pesticide substances.…”

Section: Maximum Residue Limits (Mrls) and Tradementioning

confidence: 99%

“…Product carbon footprint are usually based on a limited range of GHG emissions standards, such as the British PAS2050, or the WRI Greenhouse Gas Protocol. 49 Due to the vast range of initiatives in the food certification field, their voluntary nature and the wide difference in the sustainability requirements associated, quantifying the overall potential reduction in terms of GHGs from the adoption of labelling or certification schemes is complex (Prag, Lyon and Russillo, 2016 [247]; Keller, 2013[241]).…”

Section: Cost-effectiveness To Limit Environmental Harmmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…48 Mandatory labelling is discussed together with other information disclosure requirements in Section 4.3.2. 49 More information on the PAS2050 Carbon Footprint standard is available at https://ghgprotocol.org/sites/default/files/standards_supporting/GHG%20Protocol%20PAS%202050%20Factsheet.p df. More information about the WRI Greenhouse Gas Protocol is available at https://ghgprotocol.org/.…”

Section: Cost-effectiveness To Limit Environmental Harmmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Pursuing higher environmental goals for agriculture in an interconnected world

2023

OECD Food, Agriculture and Fisheries Papers

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Governments in many countries are pursuing higher environmental goals for agriculture. However, in an interconnected world, the unilateral adoption of environmental policies for agriculture can reduce the producers' competitiveness and induce pollution leakage. This report analyses these challenges and discusses policy solutions, focusing on two examples: climate change mitigation policies and policies limiting the environmental impacts of pesticides. The extent of competitiveness and leakage effects is found to depend on market conditions, differences in pollution intensity, and the type of environmental policy adopted. Two policy routes are identified to improve agriculture's environmental performance while maintaining the benefits of global markets. The first route relies on "direct" environmental policies, such as market-based instruments or regulations, which are rapidly effective in limiting environmental impacts but may require additional complementary policies to limit their potential competitiveness and leakage impacts. The second route involves alternative policies acting on agricultural supply, demand, or through private sector engagement, which limit competitiveness and leakage impacts but may require time to be environmentally effective.

show abstract

Section: Maximum Residue Limits (Mrls) and Tradementioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Cost-effectiveness To Limit Environmental Harmmentioning

confidence: 99%