With respect to natural resources, trade bans can increase poaching as the price goes up because of remaining illegal activities. This is why some have suggested reselling the confiscated products to satisfy demand and drive down prices. Or, in the case of storable products like horn or ivory, governments could stockpile the confiscated products and threaten to dump the products on the market if prices get too high (Kremer and Morcom (2000)).

Perhaps the most celebrated disputes regarding the conservation of natural resources are the “shrimp-turtle” and “tuna-dolphin” disputes, both involving the US. In the “shrimp-turtle” case, the Appellate Body ruled against the US as it had banned imports of sea turtles from certain areas (but not from others in the Caribbean) that were not using turtle excluder devices (TEDs). In the Tuna-dolphin case involving the US and Mexico (under the GATT (1991)), the US lost the case when it argued that tuna could only be imported, if it was caught in purse-seine nets, jurisprudence that was overturned later in the shrimp-turtle decision which in effect ruled that processes and production methods (PPMs)--such as requirements for TEDs --could be invoked by WTO members for contingent protection. Technically, Shrimp-Turtle did not explicitly approve the use of non-product related production and process methods (NPR-PPMs), but it did provide that they could in certain circumstances be justified under the GATT’s article XX exception clauses.

# **6.2 Environmental Goods and Services**

Some of the difficulties in identifying the effects of trade on the environment came to light when at the Doha Ministerial, WTO members were invited to make submissions that would help define a “universe” of ‘environmental goods’ that would be open to negotiated reductions in trade barriers.<sup>31</sup> To begin with, there are no provisions in the WTO legal system related specifically to environmental goods and services (EGS), except for the application of the MFN clause and a general interdiction against the use of quantitative restrictions, rules that apply to all goods and services. Second, in spite of drawn out negotiations under the Doha Round, there is no agreed-upon definition of what an ‘environmental good’ or an ‘environmental service’ is. Obstacles faced in classifying EGS are summarized in Figure 3 which shows two broad categories: on the left, Goods for Environmental Management (GEM), and on the right, Environmentally Preferable Products (EPPs).

On the left belong products whose use is to improve the management of the environment. GEM include “pollution management” services (e.g. tubes, pipes, filters) and “resource management” products such as renewable energy equipment (towers and lattice masts for wind turbines). These goods generally have multiple end-uses, only part of which serves environmental purposes.

Environmentally Preferable Products (EPPs) on the right-hand-side are single-use products that produce less environmental damage either in their production, their use or their disposal. Examples would be an energy-efficient washing machine or the use of low-emission technology in aluminum production (e.g. Pre-bake rather than Soderberg technology).

> 31 The gains from an open world trade regime is evident in the renewable energy sector. Supply chains involving many countries in the provision of specialized services and many components in the solar PV sector are sourced in different countries. See the case studies in ICSTD( 2011, chp4).

22