Conclusion
The conclusion has already been stated in the introduction to this paper:WTO rules do not categorically prohibit PPM-based measures. They also do not constitute an assertion of extraterritorial jurisdiction. PPM-based measures appear in different forms, and they must accordingly be assessed under the appropriate WTO rules. Whether a measure targets foreign producers or governments should play a role in this assessment. If PPM-based measures are not categorically prohibited, that is not to say that they will easily comply with WTO disciplines. When applied unilaterally, they are suboptimal means of addressing environmental problems, and the danger that they are used for protectionist purposes must effectively be curbed. Moreover, the tension between market access for products from developing countries and the desire in developed countries to address environmental problems through PPM measures must be given proper consideration. But in some circumstances, PPM-based measures can be useful, for example as a means to forge international co-operation. A more constructive discussion as to what those circumstances are will only be possible if the misconception that PPMs areper se prohibited by the WTO rules is removed.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Charnovitz, S. (2001), “Solving the Production and Processing Methods (PPMs) Puzzle”, Graduate Institute of International Studies, 2001; Howse, R. and Regan, D. (2000), “The Product/Process Distinction — An Illusory Basis for Disciplining Unilateralism in Trade Policy”, (2000) 11 EJIL 249; and Bronckers, M. and McNelis, N. (2000), “Rethinking the ‘Like Product’ Definition in GATT 1994“, in Cotther T; Mavroidis, P.,Regulatory barriers and the Principle of Non-Discrimination in World Trade Law, Ann Arbor, University of Michigan Press 2000.
Charnovitz,op. cit, at 25–27.
OECD (1997), “PPMs : Conceptual Framework and Considerations on Use of PPM- based Trade Measures” at 1.
Ibid.
Panel inEC-Hormones (WT/DS125/R and AB/R, EC-Measures Affecting the Prohibition of Asbestos and Asbestos Products (US)), para.4.252; (CND), para.4.336.
Ibid., at 6.
Charnovitz,op.cit., at 22.
The measures at issue in US-Shrimp-Turtle did include certain aspects targeting producers. Seeinfra.
Nollkaemper A. (1998), “Rethinking States’ Rights to promote Extra-territorial Environmental Values”, in Weiss, F., Denters, E., and de Waart, P. (ed.),International Economic Law with a Human Face, The Hague, Kluwer Law Inernational, 1998; Demaret, R (1994), “Trade-Related Environmental Measures (TREMs) in the External Relations of the European Community”, in Cameron, J., Demaret, R and Geradin, D. (eds.), Tradeand the Environment The Searchfor Balance, London, Cameron May, 1994; Appleton, A. (1997),Environmental Labelling Programmes — International Trade Law Implications, London, Kluwer Law International, 1997, at 77.
Ibid., para.5.35. Emphasis added.
Hudec, R. (2000) (manuscript), “The Product-Process Doctrine in GATT/WTO Jurisprudence”, inFestschrift for John Jackson, Kluwer, 2000; Howse and Regan,op. cit.
See Hudec, op. cit, Howse and Regan,op. cit, making essentially the same claim.
Howse and Regan,op. cit., at 255.
Seesupra, note 14. Emphasis added.
Ibid., paras.8.92-94.
Japan-Alcohol (1987) (BISD 34S/83, Japan-Customs Duties, Taxes and Labelling Practices on Imported Wines and Alcoholic Beverages), para.5.7.
US-Beer (BISD 39S/206, US-Measures Affecting Alcoholic and Malt Beverages), para.5.19.
Hudec,op. cit., text accompanying footnote 29 (manuscript).
Howse and Regan,op. cit, at 263.
Ibid., para. I 17.
Howse, R. and Tuerk, E., “The WTO Impact on International Regulations — A Case Study of the Canada-EC Asbestos Dispute”, 2001, at 16.
Wiers, J. and Mathis J., “The Report of the Appellate Body in the Abestos Dispute, (2001)28Legate Issues of Economic Integration 211–225.
Bronckers and McNelis,op. cit, appear to take the view that governments should not be allowed to steer consumer preferences in this way.
Howse and Tuerk,op. cit.
Cf. Van Calster, G. at 299,International and EU Trade Law — The Environmental Dimension, London, Cameron May, 2000.
See e.g.Thailand-Cigarettes (BISD 37S/200, Thailand-Restrictions on the Importation of Cigarettes).
Ibid., para.5.27. Emphasis added.
Ibid., para. 7.48-51. Emphasis added.
Ibid, para 165.
Ibid., paras. 166–172.
Ibid, paras. 173.
Ibid., paras.5.43-88.
Ibid., para. 157. Emphasis added.
Ibid., para. 156. See Charnovitz (2001) at 30–31.
Cf. Howse and Regan,op. cit, at 276.
Nollkaemperop. cit, at 194.
Jansen, B. and Lugard, M., “Some Considerations of Trade Barriers Erected for Non- Economic Reasons and WTO Obligation”, (1999)2 Journal of International Economic Law 530–536, at 534.
Shaw, M.International Law, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1997, at 470–73.
Nollkaemper,op. cit, at 199.
Ibid.
Appleton,op. cit., at 93.
Appleton,op. cit., at 93.
Abdel Motaal, D., “The Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade, the Committee on Trade and Environment, and Eco-labelling”, in Sampson, G. (ed.), Trade, Environment,and the Millenium, New York, United Nations University Press, 1999, and Swiss paper, G/TBT/W/162.
Regulation 3254/91, OJ 1991 L 308/1.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
This paper is based on a section of a forthcoming PhD thesis entitled ‘Trade and Environment in the EC and the WTO’, publication of which is expected in 2002. My thanks to Cathryn Costello, Lothar Ehring, Gabrielle Marceau, and Jim Mathis for commenting on the draft.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Wiers, J. WTO rules and environmental production and processing methods (PPMs). ERA Forum 2, 101–111 (2001). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02817544
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02817544