in coverage. While the presence of comprehensive national legislation is not the only factor responsible for environmental performance of a country – Esty and Porter (2002) found that other important factors include regulatory structures responsible for compliance and enforcement; availability of environmental information; civil society presence and empowerment; administrative, scientific, and technical infrastructure – it is clear that cross‐country differences in environmental performance are associated with the rigor and structure of environmental regulations as well as a country’s willingness and ability to enforce these regulations (Esty and Porter 2002).

The enormous variation in countries’ environmental policies and enforcement capabilities has real implications for BRI transportation investments. One of the repeated concerns of environmental critics is that BRI investors will show a preference for infrastructure projects and routes in countries with lower standards and enforcement in order to avoid the upfront costs of carrying out a comprehensive EIA or SEA (W. Laurance 2017; Moran et al. 2018; Shinn 2016). As China tightens its own environmental standards, the difference between standards at home and those in many BRI countries are becoming increasingly stark. Will China follow its longstanding commitment to rely on host‐country legislation and norms to dictate how BRI investments address environmental impacts? Or will it require its investment to adhere to more stringent international or Chinese standards in order to achieve its vision of a sustainable and green Belt and Road? In the next section we will explore some of the international “best practice” standards that could help attain a sustainable and green BRI.

# II. GLOBAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICIES

The Good Industry International Practice (GIIP) standards established by international entities – whether international agreements, international lending safeguards, or voluntary standards from nonprofit organizations or industry – are often more restrictive than those of individual nations, especially countries with weak environmental policies. In this section we review a range of these standards, from binding requirements from international lending institutions to voluntary standards that may be advantageous to follow when considering net economic benefits or reputational enhancement. This section also reviews the environmental standards of Chinese policy banks. Critically, while as just noted often international practices go beyond the standards of host countries, if those practices are not implemented in ways that actually constrain the impacts of all BRI investments, including with significant consequences for failing to carry out improved and agreed practices, then their benefits are not realized. Consequential monitoring and the enforcement of agreed conditions is a necessary part of all projects.

## A. International Agreements

Though there are many fewer international environmental policies than the myriad national laws, there are still far too many that potentially bear on BRI transportation infrastructure to describe individually here (and see Monteiro and Trachtman _in review_ for provisions within trade agreements). These international agreements are not likely to affect BRI transportation projects directly but through their work with governments, international institutions, and NGOs to create appropriate relevant policies. Appendix 11 provides an overview of some of the critical agreements with the greatest overlap. For more detailed information, the Green Growth Knowledge Platform meta‐analysis of environmental databases is a good source (Booth 2017). The Ecolex (www.ecolex.org/), Environmental Treaties and Resource Indicators (http://sedac.ciesin.columbia.edu/entri/index.jsp), and International Environmental Agreements Database (https://iea.uoregon.edu/) also provide useful references along these same lines.

36