E-LEARNING COURSE MODULE 1

GREEN ECONOMY & TRADE

GREEN ECONOMY AND TRADE 1

Copyright © United Nations Institute for Training and Research, 2016, on behalf of PAGE

The report is published as part of the Partnership for Action on Green Economy (PAGE) – an initiative by the
United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), the International Labour Organization (ILO), the United
Nations Development Programme (UNDP), the United Nations Industrial Development Organization
(UNIDO) and the United Nations Institute for
Training and Research (UNITAR).

This publication may be reproduced in whole or in part and in any form for educational or non-profit
purposes without special permission from the copyright holder, provided acknowledgement of the source is
made. The PAGE Secretariat would appreciate receiving a copy of any publication that uses this publication
as a source.

No use of this publication may be made for resale or for any other commercial purpose whatsoever
without prior permission in writing from the PAGE Secretariat.

Course authors
Jorge E. Viñuales, University of Cambridge, Harold Samuel Professor of Law and Environmental Policy
Director, Cambridge Centre for Environment, Energy and Natural Resource Governance (C-EENRG)

Contributors
Giuliano Montanari, Maya Valcheva, Amrei Horstbrink (UNITAR), Lennart Kuntze, Taylor Clayton, Anja von
Moltke (UN Environment), Gregg Cornelius, Bolormaa Tumurchudur-Klok, Olga Strietska-Ilina (ILO).

Citation
PAGE (2016), Green Economy and Trade E-Learning Course, Module 1

Disclaimer
This publication has been produced with the support of PAGE funding partners. The contents
of this publication are the sole responsibility of PAGE and can in no way be taken to reflect the
views of any Government. The designations employed and the presentation of the material in this
publication do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of the PAGE partners
concerning the legal status of any country, territory, city or area or of its authorities, or concerning
delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries.

Moreover, the views expressed do not necessarily represent the decision or the stated policy of the PAGE
partners, nor does citing of trade names or commercial processes constitute endorsement.

This document was produced with the financial assistance of the European Union. The views expressed
herein can in no way be taken to reflect the official opinion of the European Union.

Acknowledgements
PAGE gratefully acknowledges the support of all its funding partners: European Union, Germany, Finland,
Norway, Republic of Korea, Sweden, Switzerland and the United Arab Emirates.

Designed by
Pilar Lagos
Page
promotes
Photo credits
environmentally sound
Unless stated otherwise, the photos used are under a Creative
practices globally and in its
Commons license.
own activities. This publication is
printed on 100% recycled paper.
 TABLE OF CONTENTS 2 Perceived tensions
between trade and
the transition to
1 The evolution of the trade and an inclusive green
environment nexus economy

PAGE 7 PAGE 15

1.1 Overview 8 2.1. Overview 15

1.2. Trade and trade governance over time 9 2.2. Green Protectionism 16

1.3. Environmental governance over time 11 2.3. Loss of competitiveness 16

1.4. The transition to an Inclusive Green Economy 14 2.4. Conditionality of financing 17

2.5. Exacerbation of inequalities 18

3 Exploring synergies between trade 4 Trade and
and the transition to an inclusive green environment nexus:
economy a future outlook

PAGE 19 PAGE 25

3.1 Overview 19 4.1. Overview 25

3.2. Increased access to foreign markets for EGS

20 4.2. Emerging trends
in the trade and
environment nexus 26
3.3. Increased resource efficiency through trade 21

Key Learning Points 29

3.4. Additional opportunities to access finance and technology 22

Resources 30
3.5. Poverty eradication
23
ACRONYMS

APEC Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation

BRIC Brazil, Russia, India, China
CETA Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement
EGA Environmental Goods Agreement
EGS Environmental goods and services
FAO Food and Agriculture Organization
FSC Forest Stewardship Council
FTA Free trade agreement
GATT General Agreements on Tariffs and Trade
GCF Green Climate Fund
GDP Gross domestic product
GEF Global Environment Facility
GVC Global value chain
ICTSD International Centre for Trade and Sustainable Development
IGE Inclusive green economy
IISD International Institute for Sustainable Development
ITC International Trade Center
LEED Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design
MFN Most-favoured-nation
ODA Official development assistance
OECD Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development
PPM Production processes and methods
PV Photovoltaic
RE Renewable energy
SDG Sustainable Development Goal
TPP Trans-Pacific Partnership
UNCTAD United Nations Conference on Trade and Development
UNDP United Nations Development Programme
UNEP United Nations Environment Programme
UNFSS United Nations Forum on Sustainability Standards
UNIDO United Nations Industrial Development Organization
VSS Voluntary sustainability standards
WTO World Trade Organisation
WWII Second World War

 
 © World Bank/Arne Hoel

MODULE 1: THE TRADE AND

ENVIRONMENT NEXUS: KEY CONCEPTS,
DEVELOPMENTS AND TRENDS
Overall learning objectives:

― Discuss the main historical phases in the development of both trade

and environmental governance
― Identify the main perceived challenges arising from trade liberalisation
for the transition to an inclusive green economy
― Identify the main potential benefits of trade liberalisation for a
transition to an inclusive green economy
― Assess the current trends illustrating the connection between trade
and green economy

GREEN ECONOMY AND TRADE 6

 1

THE EVOLUTION OF THE TRADE

AND ENVIRONMENT NEXUS

1.1 Overview

Trade among organised societies has been a major activity in

human history, intensifying over time, as a result not only of better
transportation and communication systems but also of more conducive
international frameworks facilitating trade.

GREEN ECONOMY AND TRADE 7

 In addition, trade can have important social effects,
including effects on job creation, working conditions,
poverty reduction or inequality.
The connection between trade flows and the
environment is a complex and multifaceted one. As a
general matter, the increase in production driven by
the greater demand from foreign markets can lead to
a higher environmental footprint whether in the form
of increased usage of natural resources (e.g. timber,
fisheries, land for agriculture, fossil energy resources),
higher levels of energy consumption for production
processes and transportation or higher levels of
pollution and waste arising from deficient production
processes and over-consumption.
In addition, trade can have important social effects,
including effects on job creation, working conditions,
poverty reduction or inequality. However, the
environmental and social footprint varies depending
on different parameters, including what is traded (i.e.
the types of goods and services), how it is traded (i.e.
terms and processes), how goods and services traded
are produced, how benefits are distributed, and how
the waste is managed.
Conversely, environmental protection can have an
impact on trade flows, whether by regulating access
to markets for certain products, or by providing
competitive advantages/disadvantages to producers
of certain goods. Through these and other channels,
environmental protection can also affect employment
as well as growth and development. Once again, all
these aspects are highly dependent upon the specific
GREEN ECONOMY AND TRADE 8
governance that shapes the trade and environment
nexus.
In order to understand this nexus and its evolution,
it is therefore important to become familiar with
how trade flows and environmental protection are
organised in the current international system. The
current multilateral system of trade governance
dates back to the global re-organisation following
the Second World War (WWII), with the adoption in
1947 of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade
(GATT). The system was significantly strengthened
after the end of the Cold War, with the Uruguay
negotiation round leading to the establishment in
1994 of the World Trade Organisation (WTO). It
was also at this time that the connection between
trade and environmental governance became more
solidly recognised and established. Although the
inception of modern international environmental
law dates back to the Stockholm Conference on
the Human Environment, held in 1972, it was the
Rio Conference on Environment and Development,
held in 1992, with its mainstreaming of the
concept of sustainable development, that placed the
connection between trade and the environment
on the agenda of negotiators and policymakers.
Shortly thereafter, the Marrakesh Agreement
establishing the WTO expressly identified, in its
preamble, the objective of ‘expanding the production
 of and trade in goods and services, while allowing for the international level. It then introduces the IGE
the optimal use of the world’s resources in accordance concept as a conceptual tool aimed at solving
with the objective of sustainable development, seeking potential tensions. Finally, it discusses the different
both to protect and preserve the environment’. 1
aspects of the trade and environment nexus from
the perspective of the perceived tensions but also
The interactions between trade and environmental
the potential synergies between them.
protection have been apparent in the international
agenda ever since, including in the 2001 Doha
1.2 Trade and Governance Over Time
Ministerial Declaration (Doha Declaration), which
launched the Doha trade negotiation round, and with
Since 1980 the financial volume of global trade
the mainstreaming of the inclusive green economy
has multiplied by a factor of five to a value of US$
(IGE) concept after the 2008 world economic crisis,
18.95 trillion in 2014 (WTO 2015, 3). Two important
as an approach combining social development,
aspects of this global trend are its relationship with
economic development and environmental
economic growth as well as the importance of
protection. Trade is now a key component of the
global value chains. Other aspects include the rise
implementation strategy envisioned in the outcome
of South-South trade as well as of trade in services.
document of the 2012 Rio Summit (Rio+20) (see
This is covered later in this Module and in Module 2.
Box 1), and more recently in the 2030 Agenda for
Sustainable Development, particularly in Sustainable
Regarding the first aspect, more trade is clearly
Development Goal (SDG) 17.
correlated with more growth, both in developed and
– empirically – even more in developing countries;
The following lessons provide more detail on
in the latter case, this is likely a result of natural
the evolution of the relationship between trade
resource exports. Figure 1 shows the link between
and environmental protection and its expression
global trade in goods and economic growth,
through the IGE concept. The Module first provides
measured in terms of gross domestic product (GDP)
an overview of the general evolution of the trade
in the period from 2007 to 2016.
and environment terms, and their governance at

BOX 1: RIO+20 – A TURNING POINT?

Twenty years after the introduction of the concept of sustainable development at the Rio Conference on
Environment and Development, another major conference was held in Rio de Janeiro. At this occasion,
Heads of State and Government reaffirmed the need to transition to an inclusive green economy and
highlighted, in the outcome document of the conference – The future we want (2012) – the role that trade
policy can play in this transition:

‘We reaffirm that international trade is an engine for development and sustained economic growth, and also reaffirm
the critical role that a universal, rules-based, open, non-discriminatory and equitable multilateral trading system,
as well as meaningful trade liberalization, can play in stimulating economic growth and development worldwide,
thereby benefiting all countries at all stages of development as they advance towards sustainable development’
(paragraph 281)

1
Click here to access the Agreement text.

GREEN ECONOMY AND TRADE 9

 Figure 1: Growth in volume of world merchandise trade and GDP (2007-2016)

15
Average trade growth
10 1990 - 2014

0
World trade volume (avg.
-5 Average GDP growth exports and imports)
-10 1990 - 2014 World real GDP at market
exchange rates
-15
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015P 2016P

Annual percentage change. Figures for 2015 and Importantly, the link between trade and GDP
2016 are projections. Trade refers to the average of (specifically, the share of exports to GDP) seems
exports and imports. (WTO 2015, 2) stronger in developing countries. Figure 2 shows the
export-to-GDP ratio for the world and for different
regions.
Figure 2: Exports-to-GDP ratio (1989-2011)

50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
1989 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007 2009 2011

S u b - S a h a r a n A f r i c a ( d e ve l o p i n g o n l y ) Wo r l d OECD members
A s i a Pa c i f i c ( d e ve l o p i n g o n l y ) Latin America and the Caribbean

(UNEP 2013, 33)

The global expansion of free trade and the rise of percent (902 million people) to 9.6 percent (702
the BRIC countries (Brazil, Russia, India, China) has million people) of the global population (World Bank
had a major positive effect on poverty reduction. 2015). However, the benefits of growth have mostly
Between 1990 and 2010 the percentage of the been unevenly distributed, with inequality measures
global population living in extreme poverty (on suggesting that the wealthiest 20 percent earn over
US$ 1.25 a day) has been halved to 21 percent 70 percent of the global income, with even higher
(UNEP/IISD 2014, 1). A revised projection concentrations for the wealthiest hundred people,
published by the World Bank and based on an who are estimated to hold some 50 percent of
adjusted poverty line (US$ 1.90 a day) suggests global wealth (UNEP/IISD 2014, 1). Moreover, as
that between 2012 and 2015 the number of discussed in the following section, growth has had
people living below the line has fallen from 12.8 significant impacts on the environment.)

GREEN ECONOMY AND TRADE 10

 The second feature of global trade has been its
increasing integration in global value chains (GVCs).
The concept of GVCs refers to the fact that ‘[n]
ational economies are increasingly interconnected
in an economic structure (…) where all the elements
needed to produce a final good or service –
production of inputs, design, assembly, management,
marketing, savings for investment – may be sourced
from around the globe in a system held together
by powerful communications and information
technologies’ (UNEP/IISD 2014, 1). The rationale of
the concept of GVCs is to ‘unbundle’ or disaggregate
stages of production of a given good or service and
let countries and/or firms that have a comparative
advantage on a given stage specialize. The
contribution of least-developed countries to GVCs
has so far consisted mainly of natural resources and
raw materials. This has a number of consequences,
such as their increased vulnerability to a fall in
commodity prices, but also presents opportunities,
as further discussed in Module 3A in connection with
sustainable agriculture.
Trade governance has both induced and reflected
these trends. The creation of the WTO in 1994
strongly encouraged global trade.2 In parallel to the
global trade system, another model of a bilateral
2
An overview of the structure and operation of the WTO is provided in Module 4.
GREEN ECONOMY AND TRADE 11
or regional nature (called, for simplicity, free trade
agreements or FTAs) tended to develop after the
failure of the WTO Ministerial Conference in Seattle,
in 1999 (Lester, Mercurio, Bartels 2016, 3). Free trade
agreements, including the so-called ‘mega-regional’
agreements, which liberalise trade and investment
between large trading blocks, are becoming more and
more important in trade governance, and they will be
discussed in Module 4 alongside the WTO system.
1.3 Environmental Governance Over
Time
The modern inception of the environmental
movement at the international level dates back to the
Stockholm Conference on the Human Environment,
held in 1972. Before Stockholm, environmental
concerns were marginal and mainly took the form
of either nature conservation conventions (e.g. the
1940 Western Hemisphere Convention) or treaties
managing biological resources (e.g. the 1946
Whaling Convention).
In the aftermath of WWII, a major focus of global
governance was the decolonisation of former
colonies, with their ensuing claims over their natural
resources.
 This shift in the focus of international action from recognition to actual
implementation is an important trend.
What we now call the ‘environment’ was, in fact,
perceived by countries around the world, particularly
developing and newly independent countries as a
‘natural resource’ to be exploited to the benefit of
their people. The UN General Assembly adopted, in
1962, an important resolution entitled ‘Permanent
Sovereignty over Natural Resources’ (Res. 1803)
which crystallised this understanding. It is in this
context that one must situate the attempts by
developed countries to bring environmental
concerns, mostly pollution of the marine
environment and transboundary air pollution (e.g.
acid rain) resulting from this exploitative mindset,
to the international arena. That was done at the
aforementioned Stockholm Conference, which
brought environmental concerns under the remit
of the United Nations, mostly through the creation
of the United Nations Environment Programme
(UNEP).
However, the logics of development and
environmental protection were not perceived by
developing countries to be aligned. What can be
called the environment-development equation has
ever since underpinned international negotiations
on environmental matters (Viñuales 2013). The
concept of sustainable development was, in fact,
GREEN ECONOMY AND TRADE 12
mainstreamed through the efforts of the World
Commission on Environment and Development
(1983-1987) (often called the Brundtland Commission
after its president) precisely to align the two sets of
logic. Sustainable development was introduced as the
overarching conceptual synthesis of environmental
protection and socio-economic development at the
Rio Conference on Environment and Development
(1992) and spelt out in both the Rio Declaration and
the ambitious action plan ‘Agenda 21’.
Over the years, the focus of international efforts
has moved from recognition of the need to
protect the environment, to reconciliation of
environmental protection and socio-economic
development, to the development of adequate
environmental instruments, to – more recently –
actual implementation of existing regulations. After
the 2002 Johannesburg Summit on Sustainable
Development, and even more after Rio+20, the
focus has been on implementation, with broad
but integrated and widely accepted Sustainable
Development Goals to guide future efforts towards
balancing prosperity and environmental protection.
Importantly, SDGs rely on trade policy as a key means
of implementation, as stated in SDG 17 (UNEP 2015).

This shift in the focus of international action from
recognition to actual implementation is an important
trend. Conventional patterns of growth and
development have left a profound environmental
footprint, including massive pollution of the oceans,
major losses in biodiversity, serious degradation of
air quality in many major cities and adverse global
phenomena such as the depletion of the ozone
layer and climate change (see generally UNEP,
Global Environment Outlook 5, 2012).
The civilizational challenge posed by climate change
is mainly driven by human emissions from fossil fuel
combustion, deforestation and agricultural activities.
As basic needs such as food, heating, electricity
GREEN ECONOMY AND TRADE 13
© World Bank/Curt Carnemark
or mobility will not disappear – yet rather will
increase, in line with forecasted global population
growth – the world needs to meet them through a
fundamentally different approach.
Current policy efforts, mostly conducted under
the banners of sustainable development and
IGE, aim at increasing the resource efficiency of
human activities (i.e. deriving more from less)
and, potentially, at ‘decoupling’ growth from
environmental degradation, whether measured
in terms of greenhouse gas emissions or through
other indicators relating to land, water or air quality.
 1.4 The Transition of an Inclusive As explained by UNEP’s former Executive Director,
Green Economy
The core strength of the sustainable development
paradigm, namely its ability to incorporate widely
different concerns and policies within a single
programmatic concept, is also its main challenge,
to the extent that its implementation requires more
specific guidance. By way of illustration, it is unclear
whether the development of genetically modified
organisms could be seen as ‘sustainable’; some use
far less water than conventional produce and can
be grown in less fertile areas. Yet, they introduce
an unknown form of life into the environment and
fall foul of the principles of sustainable agriculture.
Hence, more specific guidance seems desirable.
The IGE concept can be seen as a tool to implement
sustainable development, in which the environment-
development equation is solved through a focus
on real opportunities (discussed in Modules 2,
3A and 3B) arising from the need to protect the
environment. Indeed, in an IGE, the objective is
not only to maintain socio-economic performance
while respecting the environment – as envisioned by
sustainable development – but to actually increase
socio-economic performance by focusing on pro-
environment opportunities (Viñuales, 2012, 13).
GREEN ECONOMY AND TRADE 14
Achim Steiner:
‘An Inclusive Green Economy has evolved from earlier
work on Green Economy. In its simplest expression,
such an economy is low carbon, efficient and clean
in production, but also inclusive in consumption and
outcomes, based on sharing, circularity, collaboration,
solidarity, resilience, opportunity, and interdependence.
It is focused on expanding options and choices for
national economies, using targeted and appropriate
fiscal and social protection policies, and backed up
by strong institutions that are specifically geared
to safeguarding social and ecological floors. And it
recognizes that there are many and diverse pathways
to environmental sustainability’ (UNEP 2015b, 6).
In a global economic system largely shaped by
global value chains, many opportunities arising
from the transition to an IGE rely on trade. Trade
policy, if appropriately used, can be a powerful
tool to promote the transition to an IGE, but this
requires a robust understanding of both the
potential challenges and opportunities at the trade
and environment nexus. The following sections set
out to provide such understanding.
© World Bank/Allion Kwesell
 2

PERCEIVED TENSIONS
BETWEEN TRADE AND THE
TRANSITION TO AN INCLUSIVE
GREEN ECONOMY

2.1 Overview
The potential tensions underpinning the nexus of trade and environment
have been expressed through scepticism and criticism by some developing
countries towards the role of trade liberalisation in the transition to an IGE. In
this lesson, we examine the perceived challenges that underlie this criticism.
The subsequent lesson considers the potential opportunities arising from the
trade and environment nexus, as they relate to each of the challenges discussed,
respectively.

GREEN ECONOMY AND TRADE 15

 2.2 Green Protectionism
Concerns regarding the possibility that
environmental regulation may become covert
protectionism were initially voiced in early days of
global environmental governance. As part of the
preparations of the 1972 Stockholm Conference,
the GATT Secretariat presented a study highlighting
this concern (GATT 1971). The issue of ‘green
protectionism’ has remained a concern, particularly
of developing countries, in the aftermath of the
Cold War. Principle 12 of the Rio Declaration
(1992) re-affirmed that ‘[t]rade policy measures
for environmental purposes should not constitute
a means of arbitrary or unjustifiable discrimination
or a disguised restriction on international trade.’
More recently, in the context of Rio+20, developing
countries expressed concern relating to the
possibility that green economy measures may
become an excuse for developed countries to
penalise developing country exports, on grounds
of ‘environmental‘ regulation. For example, some
of the policy instruments that could be used to
GREEN ECONOMY AND TRADE 16
drive the transition to an IGE, such as local content
requirements, preferential financing, domestic
targets on government procurement, feed-in-
tariff schemes and other forms of subsidies, and
carbon offset measures, ‘are similar to those used in
traditional industrial policy, which seek[s] to create
advantages for local sourcing’ (UNCTAD, 2011, 17).
It is, therefore, not only the transition to an IGE but
also the genuine purpose of the measures used to
drive such a transition that matters. In this context,
the design of international trade instruments (see
Module 4) could render the discriminatory (mis-)
use of environmental regulation more difficult and,
hence, less likely. By way of illustration, renewable
energy support schemes should avoid local content
(‘buy local’) requirements as these have protectionist
effects and are inconsistent with trade law.
2.3 Loss of competitiveness
Another concern that has been aired in discussions
relating to the use of trade policy to promote an
IGE is its impact on competitiveness. Although
differentiation among goods and services on the
basis of their respective environmental footprint
seems legitimate and provides the rationale
for lowering the tariffs applicable to so-called
‘environmental goods and services’ (EGS), from a
political economy perspective, such differentiation
may provide a comparative advantage to those
countries – often developed countries – with a strong
positioning in these sectors. The basic notion is that
developed countries have the requisite industrial
base, human capital and framework conditions to
produce and export EGS (e.g. energy efficiency
equipment) in more competitive terms, and that
the IGE provides them with grounds to tailor the
international system to benefit their own industries.
This concern is a form of green protectionism of
domestic industries, namely by strengthening the
competitiveness in international markets.
 A key challenge in this regard is agreement on the
identification of those goods and services that would qualify
as ‘environmental’ for purposes of trade facilitation rules.
In 2001, paragraph 31(iii) of the Doha Declaration
identified EGS as an area for further trade
liberalisation. However, the negotiations at the WTO
on this point (as with most other points) have been
extremely difficult. A key challenge in this regard
is agreement on the identification of those goods
and services that would qualify as ‘environmental’
for purposes of trade facilitation rules. Identifying
certain goods and services largely amounts to
identifying those countries that are better positioned
to benefit from trade liberalisation in these sectors
or, conversely, whose industries may have to face
increased competition from foreign products. Lack
of sufficient progress at the multilateral level has led
to narrower approaches such as the adoption of a
list of 54 environmental goods by members of the
Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) forum,
an illustrative list proposed by the Organisation for
Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD),
or the current initiative of 17 WTO members (incl. the
EU-28) to negotiate the adoption of an Environmental
Goods Agreement (EGA). Such an EGA would
seek to eliminate tariffs on selected environmental
goods, and may eventually be expanded to cover
non-tariff barriers and environmental services (see
further ICTSD, 2013).
GREEN ECONOMY AND TRADE 17
2.4. Conditionality of financing
A major concern of developing countries is that
international financial assistance – or a part thereof
– may be made conditional on the adoption
of policies consistent with an IGE. International
financial assistance may take different forms,
including official development assistance (ODA),
loans or other assistance by international financial
institutions, as well as financial assistance from
environment-specific funds such as the Global
Environmental Facility (GEF) or the recently
established Green Climate Fund (GCF). The latter
is expected to mobilise or leverage one hundred
billion US$ per year for mitigation and adaptation
projects in developing countries (Decision 1/COP-
21, para 54).
This concern, at the root of which one finds
considerations of sovereignty (e.g. the choice of
development pathway), is not directly related to
trade policy. However, it is relevant for trade because
of the potential linkages between access to finance
and market access, both for the goods and services
exported by fund providers (or by the organisations
over which the latter exercise a significant measure
of control) as well as for foreign direct investment.
Indeed, international financing may be a key
factor in supporting green industries in developing
countries as well as much needed capacity building
operations (e.g. to understand and use ‘standards’
and thus gain access or even a competitive edge in
foreign markets).
 2.5. Exacerbation of inequalities
There have been concerns relating to the possibility
that IGE-driven trade liberalisation may increase
wealth inequalities within countries favouring
intermediaries or major exporters/importers and
eroding the competitiveness of small and traditional
producers. The gap between the wealthiest and the
poorest has in fact widened both globally and at the
national level. As mentioned above, the wealthiest
20 percent of the world population possess over
70 percent of total income (UNEP/IISD 2014, 1). On
average, income inequality in developing countries
increased by 11 percent between 1990 and 2010
(UNDP 2013, 3).
From a trade perspective, inequality among
countries has particularly been reflected in the
type of segment or production stage at which
many developing countries are contributing to
global value chains. Certain stages tend to focus
on the provision of natural resources and raw
materials rather than on value addition through a
more diversified portfolio of exports. Such narrow
focus amplifies the exposure of such countries to
fluctuation in the price of commodities. In addition,
as discussed in connection with concerns over green
protectionism and competitiveness, unrestrained
trade liberalisation can have a potentially adverse
impact (at least temporarily) on the industries, and
hence the labour markets, of developing countries.
This concern has recently been expressed
multilaterally in SDG 10, which focuses on ‘[r]
educ[ing] inequality within and among countries’.
Among the specific targets of SDG 10, reference is
made to ‘[i]mplement[ing] the principle of special
and differential treatment for developing countries,
in particular least developed countries, in accordance
with World Trade Organization agreements’. Similarly,
the IGE concept places great emphasis on the
dimension of ‘inclusiveness’. In a recent UNEP report
that formulates several ‘design principles’ to achieve
an IGE, the very first principle is ‘the centrality of
jobs and the economy’ (UNEP 2015b, 19). This is
particularly important because the transition to an
IGE should benefit all, including those that are active
in sectors that will be adversely affected (e.g. fossil
fuels). As outlined in Box 2, a green economy can
only be inclusive if employment, as an enabler of
social inclusiveness, is adequately addressed.

BOX 2: EXCERPT FROM UNEP’S UNCOVERING PATHS TOWARDS AN

INCLUSIVE GREEN ECONOMY, 2015 - THE CENTRALITY OF JOBS
‘Work provides not merely the incomes we need for daily living, but meaning to our lives, social inclusion
and self-respect. It is no surprise therefore that the largest concerns in any economy are around the very
real risks of job losses and how to overcome them. Whilst social security and income support schemes
can and do help, the only lasting solutions are new jobs, the so-named ‘green and decent jobs’ that the
new economic model will generate. The good news is that new job opportunities in an inclu¬sive green
economy are significant, but they need to be identified early, and the education and skills training needed
to fill them ought to be an early priority for any state engaging in such a transition.’

In designing appropriate policies for the transition to transition to an IGE creates many opportunities, and
an IGE, it is important to keep in mind these different appropriately designed trade policies can provide a
concerns. At the same time, as discussed next, the powerful tool to harness them.

GREEN ECONOMY AND TRADE 18

 3

EXPLORING SYNERGIES
BETWEEN TRADE AND THE
TRANSITION TO AN INCLUSIVE
GREEN ECONOMY

3.1 Overview

Each of the perceived challenges discussed in the previous lesson

harbours, on closer inspection, a potential opportunity arising from the
transition to an IGE. This lesson discusses four main opportunities.

GREEN ECONOMY AND TRADE 19

 3.2 Increased access to foreign Progress on this front has been difficult at a WTO-
markets for EGS
A major argument regarding the relevance of
trade liberalisation for the green economy is the
creation or increased access to foreign markets for
environmental goods and services, including those
produced in developing countries. This argument
is, in fact, the reverse of the green protectionism
argument.
EGS have been characterised as ‘goods and services
to measure, prevent, limit, minimise or correct
environmental damage to water, air and soil as well
as problems related to waste, noise and ecosystems’
(OECD 2005). However, whereas it may be possible
to define conceptually what is understood by EGS,
in practice there has been significant disagreement
as to what should and what should not qualify as
EGS. This disagreement has led to different proposed
lists of EGS.
wide (multilateral) level, despite the fact that the
Doha Declaration specifically called for the ‘reduction
or, as appropriate, elimination of tariff and non-
tariff barriers to environmental goods and services’
(paragraph 31(iii)). As noted earlier, at a ‘plurilateral’
level (i.e. among a sub-set of WTO members), a list of
54 environmental goods was indeed agreed in 2012
among the 21 member countries of APEC, which
includes both developed (e.g. Australia, Canada,
Japan, United States) and developing countries (e.g.
China, Indonesia, Philippines, Vietnam). In January
2016, members of APEC implemented their initial
pledge to cut tariffs for the environmental goods
included in the list to 5 percent or below.
Using both the OECD and APEC characterisation
of environmental goods, Figure 4 shows that the
exports of such goods increased in the period 2001-
2007, including exports from developing countries,
although the environmental goods market showed
a lower growth rate than overall trade in goods.

Figure 4: Growth in trade of environmental goods (2001-2007), US$ million

900,000

750,000

600,000

450,000

300,000

150,000

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

World Developed Countries Developing Countries LDCs

(UNEP 2013, 37)

GREEN ECONOMY AND TRADE 20

 If one looks more closely at South-South trade in
some selected EGS, it appears that it has grown
faster (29.4 percent per year on average) than
global trade (excluding intra-EU trade) in the same
segments (26.7 percent) (UNEP 2014, 6). Developing
countries have moved from being net importers to
become net exporters of certain renewable energy
goods (particularly, solar panels). Figure 5 shows
this trend over the period 2004-2012.
Figure 5: Developing country balance of trade
in selected renewable energy products (US$
millions)
Developing country exports Developing country imports
60,000
50,000
40,000
30,000
20,000
10,000
0
-10,000
-20,000
-30,000
2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
(UNEP 2014, 7)
The APEC list has been influential, providing a basis
for wider negotiation. Initiated in 2014, 17 WTO
members, including the EU-28, are negotiating a
plurilateral EGA that could thereafter be extended
at a multilateral (WTO-wide) level on the basis of
the most-favoured-nation (MFN) principle (Box 3).
3.3 Increased resource efficiency to goods (or services) that are not currently on
through trade
If properly designed and implemented, trade
policies can promote the greening of global value
chains and improve resource efficiency through the
use of standards. Thus, trade policy can contribute
to the sustainable and efficient use of natural
resources.
GREEN ECONOMY AND TRADE 21
BOX 3: TOWARDS AN
ENVIRONMENTAL GOODS
AGREEMENT
Since July 2014, a group of WTO members has
conducted negotiations towards the adoption of
an Environmental Goods Agreement. The goal
of these negotiations is to remove barriers to
trade on certain goods (e.g. wind turbines, solar
panels, carbon dioxide scrubbers, recycling
machinery, etc.) that are of particular importance
for environmental protection and climate action.
The identification of relevant environmental
Balance of trade goods took as a starting-point the list of 54
products adopted by APEC countries but the
ambition is to further develop this list over time
as well as to include related environmental
services (e.g. for the maintenance and repair
of renewable energy equipment). As of July
2016, the list of WTO members taking part in
the negotiations consists of Australia, Canada,
China, Costa Rica, Chinese Taipei, EU, Hong
Kong (China), Japan, Korea, New Zealand,
Norway, Switzerland, Singapore, United States,
2011 2012
Israel, Turkey and Iceland. The membership
accounts for around 90 per cent of global trade in
environmental goods, which is estimated at USD
1 trillion annually. Once agreement is reached,
the benefits of the EGA would be applied to all
WTO members using the most-favoured-nation
principle. UNEP is undertaking research and
trainings to provide developing countries with
transparent information on potential benefits
and challenges from the EGA, including in the
context of potential extension of the Agreement
the list, or to other types of (non-tariff) trade
barriers.
(Information derived from European Commission
2016)
 Standards are understood as ‘non-tariff measures
aimed at setting requirements related to, for
example, products’ quality and safety’ (UNEP 2013,
38). Their use can be a powerful tool for sustainability
because standards push producers to comply
with state-of-the-art technologies or efficiency
requirements in order to access certain markets (e.g.
through certification requirements) or by appealing
to certain categories of consumers (e.g. through
use of specific labels reflecting the application of
a certain standard). Thus, standards favour both
sustainability and resource efficiency. In turn,
market access and consumer choice promote the
wider acceptance of certain production processes
and methods (PPMs) by specific segments of the
GVC, which expect abidance by such PPMs from
their suppliers. Although standards are, as a rule,
voluntary (i.e. not legally binding), they have great
influence nevertheless because they reflect demand
from purchasers of intermediary goods or from end
consumers.
Standards reflect certain social or environmental
conditions of production and thereby create
significant opportunities for producers in both
developed and developing countries.3 At the same
time, depending on their design as well as on the
ability of small producers to comply with them,
standards may create barriers to market entry
and result in green protectionism and competitive
disadvantages. It is therefore important that small
producers and developing countries have the
ability to understand and adjust to standards and
the opportunity to shape their content (through
participation in the relevant processes).
In order to address these concerns, five UN
Agencies (UNEP, UNCTAD, the Food and Agriculture
Organisation - FAO, the International Trade
Centre - ITC, and the UN Industrial Development
Organisation – UNIDO) joined efforts in 2013 to
create the UN Forum on Sustainability Standards
(UNFSS). The UNFSS aims at providing information
and analysis on voluntary sustainability standards,
with a particular focus on enhancing the ability of
developing countries to promote use of VSS (Box 4).

BOX 4: THE UNITED NATIONS FORUM FOR

SUSTAINABILITY STANDARDS (UNFSS)
‘The increasing use of voluntary standards in connection with health, social and environmental impacts,
and the lack of consensus in the WTO to address the concerns of developing countries surrounding the
implications of such standards led to the creation of the UNFSS. The Forum views voluntary sustainability
standards (VSS) as a strategic policy issue in connection with both (i) the internalisation of negative social
and environmental externalities in production processes conducted in a business-as-usual manner and,
importantly, also (ii) the promotion of the competitiveness of developing countries in an inclusive green
economy, including through their access to sustainability markets. With these aims, the work of UNFSS is
organised in two working groups – one focusing on enhancing the convergence and coordination of VSS
and the other on assessing their impact –, and three sectors, namely agri-food, material/resource/energy
efficiency, and additional areas that are expected to cover other products and commodities.
(UNCTAD 2012)

3
In Module 2, a number of examples of such standards and their impact are discussed, including FSC certified tropical wood, ISO
14001 certified companies, or LEED certified hotels and resorts.

GREEN ECONOMY AND TRADE 22

 3.4 Additional opportunities to
access finance and technology
The seizing of trade opportunities,
Whereas the conditionality of financial assistance
may raise sovereignty concerns, it is important to particularly the production of
note that significant resources have been made
goods to be exported, can attract
available to developing countries from a variety
of sources ranging from ODA, to international capital, develop industry and
financial institutions, to environment-specific funds
create wealth, thus helping to
and private capital.
eradicate poverty.
As a general rule, the new and additional resources
provided for pro-environment projects cover the
‘agreed incremental costs’ of upgrading business-
as-usual processes to environmentally preferable
ones. In some exceptional cases, such as the Green
Climate Fund, considerable resources may be made
population living in extreme poverty (on US$ 1.9 a
available to cover the ‘agreed full costs’ of mitigation
day) from 12.8 percent in 2012 to 9.6 percent in
and adaptation related projects in developing
2015 (World Bank 2015). However, in order to be
countries.
consistent with an IGE, trade-driven wealth creation
needs to be sustainable in that increased production
Similarly, the diffusion of technology can take place
must not deplete resources used for production or
through different processes, including trade (the
generate negative externalities (especially regarding
technology is either embedded in the product or
air, water and land pollution).
implied by its production), licensing of technologies
(for use by certain entities in the receiving country)
The experience of China is a case in point. Over the
or foreign direct investment. If appropriately
last 30 years, China maintained a GDP growth rate
designed, policies aimed at attracting investment
of approximately 10 percent and lifted 500 million
or at acquiring lower-cost foreign products may
people out of extreme poverty (UNEP 2015a). A key
be beneficial for receiving countries both in socio-
growth factor was the outsourcing of manufacturing
economic and environmental terms. For instance,
activities to China, i.e. the provision of goods
such policies may drive countries’ transformation of
integrated within the global supply chain or sold
infrastructure or manufacturing processes.
to end consumers abroad. However, the Chinese
‘economic miracle’ came at a high environmental
3.5 Poverty eradication
cost, including resource use (e.g. the energy and
water consumption per unit of GDP is between
The seizing of trade opportunities, particularly the
2.5-3 times higher than the world average) (UNEP
production of goods to be exported, can attract
2015a), environmental pollution (e.g. air pollution
capital, develop industry and create wealth, thus
has become a key problem in Eastern, Northern and
helping to eradicate poverty. Although we have
Central China), and environmental deterioration
seen that the gap between the wealthiest and the
(e.g. wetlands degradation and soil erosion, with
poorest has widened in the last decades, we have
ensuing impacts on water and agriculture).
also witnessed the percentage decline of the global

GREEN ECONOMY AND TRADE 23

 The Chinese government has realised the magnitude
and importance of these environmental challenges
and gradually adopted a number of steps in
response. In 2013, China decided to mainstream the
concept of Ecological Civilization in its development
path by focusing on four main areas of action: smart
development of national land space; conservation
of natural resources; ecosystem conservation and
environmental protection; and institution building
for an Ecological Civilization (UNEP 2015a, 5).

Over time, China has heavily invested in the

development of renewable energy technologies
and equipment, both for foreign markets and
for national deployment (Box 5), with important
effects on the share of renewable energy in the
national energy mix and on the manufacturing of
environmental goods.

The opportunities discussed so far have been

identified by many countries in their efforts to pursue
sustainable development pathways. As discussed
next, the global transition to an IGE is significantly
influencing the patterns of world trade, with an
© World Bank/ Chor Sokunthea
increasing production of EGS and with increasing
participation of developing countries.

BOX 5: CHINA’S CONSOLIDATION OF THE

PHOTOVOLTAIC MANUFACTURING SECTOR
By 2012, the global photovoltaic (PV) sector faced an overcapacity crisis. China, which exports a large
share of its production in the PV segment, was adversely affected by the slowdown in demand from
foreign markets. Aware of this risk, the Chinese government designed a strategy focusing on two goals: (1)
concentrating support only on a limited number of utility-scale and internationally competitive enterprises,
and (2) developing the domestic market.

Regarding the first goal, starting in January 2011, the Chinese government set several standards (related
to production, efficiency, environment and finance) to be met by new PV manufacturers wanting to benefit
from government support. By 2014, the Government had identified a small number (slightly over 100
producers) who would continue to receive support. As for the second goal, the government uses three
main tools, namely (i) a feed-in-tariff scheme for utility-scale solar PV, financed by a surcharge paid by
consumers, (ii) a special Renewable Energy Fund used to support key deployment projects, and (iii) regular
increases in the targets for solar-power capacity installations in China.
(UNEP 2014, 55)

GREEN ECONOMY AND TRADE 24

 4

TRADE AND ENVIRONMENT

NEXUS: A FUTURE OUTLOOK

4.1 Overview

Building on the previous lessons, it is possible to identify some broad

emerging trends at the nexus of trade and environment that will
determine their future interplay.

GREEN ECONOMY AND TRADE 25


The discussion in the previous sections suggests that
the transition to an IGE may present both challenges
and opportunities relating to international trade.
Both are linked to the extent that a given trend,
such as increased trade in EGS, resource utilisation,
availability of financial resources or the degree of
social inclusiveness, may constitute a challenge or
an opportunity depending on a number of variables.
These are, for example, specific endowments
of different countries but also certain enabling
conditions and the appropriate design of trade
policies and institutions (see Module 2).
Thus, whether environmental standards operate
as barriers to market access and devices of
protectionism or as a motor for exports of EGS
from certain countries depends on how such
standards are designed and used. The provision
of appropriate ‘upstream’ assistance to developing
countries, as envisioned by the UNFSS, also plays
a key role. Similarly, whether the greening of GVCs
creates comparative advantages or disadvantages
GREEN ECONOMY AND TRADE 26
© World Bank/Dominic Chavez
for certain countries depends upon their domestic
industrial policies and their ability to seize business
opportunities arising from the transition to an IGE.
This is also the case for the availability of financial
and technological resources to the extent that a
country pursuing a ‘brown’ economy model may
find itself disadvantaged in trying to access new and
additional resources mobilised at the international
level to effect the transition to an IGE.
Whether a given trend should ultimately best be
characterised as a challenge or an opportunity can
only be assessed from an empirical perspective and
at the level of a country or sector. A more detailed
discussion in this regard is provided in Modules 2,
3A and 3B.
4.2. Emerging trends in the trade
and environment nexus
Building on the previous lessons, it is possible to
identify some broad emerging trends at the nexus
of trade and environment that will determine their
future interplay.
 Global trade in environmental
goods is already estimated at
US$ 1 trillion annually

© World Bank/ Arne Hoel

Increase in investment Developing countries taking the lead

Investment in the production of EGS, both for trade
and local consumption, is becoming more and
more important, as illustrated by Figure 4 and Box
5. Global trade in environmental goods is already
estimated at US$ 1 trillion annually (Office of the
United States Trade Representative 2016), and is
expected to significantly increase from initiatives
such as the Environmental Goods Agreement.
Developing countries are key contributors to
increased investment in the production of EGS, as
suggested not only by their overall increasing share
in global trade in EGS (see green line in Figure 4
above) but also as illustrated by the growth in South-
South trade in major renewable energy segments
(Figure 6).
.

Figure 6: South-South trade in environmental goods as a share of global trade in these sectors

% RE products Solar** Wind*** Hydro Biomass

45

40

35

30

25

2%

15

10

0
2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

GREEN ECONOMY AND TRADE 27

 Pronounced growth in trade in specific sectors
A particularly important area in the abovementioned
growth in trade flows is renewable energy (RE)
equipment. This trend is in turn driven by the
decrease in price of such equipment made possible
by heavy investments in the renewable energy
sector (both in equipment production and power
generation, which drives demand) in the last
years. After a slowdown during 2011-2013 due to
overcapacity, global investment in renewable power
and fuels (excluding large hydro-electric projects)
increased by 17 percent in 2014 and 5 percent in
2015, amounting to overall RE investment of around
US$ 286 billion (UNEP 2016, 11). Importantly, as
outlined in Box 6, developing countries have taken
a major part in this trend.
Bilateralisation and regionalisation of trade
and investment governance
Regarding institutional developments, the trend
triggered by the failure of the Seattle Conference in
1999 towards the bilateralisation or regionalisation
of trade and investment governance tended to
consolidate with the negotiation of important
‘mega-regional’ agreements, such as the
Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement
(CETA) between Canada and the EU as well as the
Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) among 12 countries,
including the United States, Canada and Japan,
though not including China. The reflection of the
trade and environment nexus in these agreements
was a particularly important and debated issue (see
Module 4 for further information).
Increasing interlinkage between trade and
environment
The above trends regarding both trade patterns
and trade governance can contribute significantly
to international efforts to reverse the profound
environmental footprint that human activities
are inflicting on the planet. More action is indeed
GREEN ECONOMY AND TRADE 28
BOX 6: INVESTMENT IN
RENEWABLE ENERGY IN
DEVELOPING COUNTRIES
The year 2015 was notable as the first in which
investment in renewables (excluding large
hydro) in developing countries outweighed that
in developed economies. The developing world
including China, India and Brazil committed
a total of US$ 156 billion, up 19 percent on
2014, while developed countries invested US$
130 billion, down 8 percent. A large element
in this turnaround was China, which lifted its
investment by 17 percent to US$ 102.9 billion, or
36 percent of the world total. Other developing
countries also raised their game – India saw its
commitments rise 22 percent to US$ 10.2 billion,
while Brazil (US$ 7.1 billion, down 10 percent),
South Africa (US$ 4.5 billion, up 329 percent),
Mexico (US$ 4 billion, up 105 percent) and Chile
(US$ 3.4 billion, up 151 percent) all joined the
list of the top 10 investing countries in 2015.
The list of developing countries investing more
than US$ 500 million last year also included
Morocco, Uruguay, the Philippines, Pakistan and
Honduras.
(UNEP 2016, 11)
needed, as so far, internationally agreed goals have
only been partially achieved. As noted in the 2012
Global Environment Outlook:
‘[m]any sub-national, national and international
instruments in place are contributing to environmental
improvements. There is evidence (…) of continuing
deterioration in many places and for most of the
global environmental issues reported on in GEO-
5’[Global Environment Outlook 5] (UNEP 2012, 7).
The objective of the following modules is to
identify specific opportunities and discuss concrete
trade-related actions that can be taken to further
contribute to environmental improvements.

© World Bank/ Daniella Van Leggelo-Padilla
KEY LEARNING POINTS
― Trade is correlated with GDP growth,
particularly for developing countries. Today,
global trade is characterised by the concept
of global value chains.
― The current focus of modern environmental
governance is effective implementation,
particularly of the 2030 Agenda for
Sustainable Development and its SDGs.
― The inclusive green economy concept is a
tool to achieve sustainable development,
with an emphasis on the opportunities
arising from the transition from a fossil fuel
dependent, resource intensive, inequitable
economy to an efficient and clean one.
GREEN ECONOMY AND TRADE 29
© World Bank/ A'Melody Lee
© World Bank/ Arne Hoel
― Environmental regulations and standards may
operate as an obstacle to accessing foreign
markets or as a potential advantage for
exporters of certain environmental goods and
services; a key consideration is the design of
trade policies.
― The greening of global value chains offers
significant opportunities for environmental
goods and services from developing countries.
― Increased access to financial and technological
resources will be available to countries and
sectors focusing on new business opportunities
arising from the transition to an IGE.
― Whether countries will experience aspects of
the transition to an IGE mostly as a challenge or
as an opportunity depends on several factors,
including the policies they adopt to position
themselves within this transition.
 RESOURCES
 

‘Adoption of the Paris Agreement’, Decision 1/CP.21, 12 December 2015, FCCC/CP/2015/L.9.

Dupuy, P.-M. and J. E. Viñuales, International Environmental Law (Cambridge University Press, 2015)

Elms, D. and P. Low (eds.), Global Value Chains in a Changing World (Geneva: FGI/NTU/WTO, 2013)

European Commission, The Environmental Goods Agreement (EGA). Liberalising trade in environmental goods
and services, available at: http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/press/index.cfm?id=1116, (2016)

GATT, Industrial Pollution Control and International Trade. Note by the GATT Secretatriat (1971)

ICTSD, List of Environmental Goods: An Overview – Information Note (2013)

Lester, S., B. Mercurio and L. Bartels (eds.), Bilateral and Regional Trade Agreements. Commentary and
Analysis (Cambridge University Press, 2nd edn. 2016).

OECD, Opening markets for environmental goods and services (2005)

United Nations, Addis Ababa Action Agenda of the Third International Conference on Financing for
Development (Addis Ababa Action Agenda) (2015)

Office of the United States Trade Representative, Environmental Goods Agreement, available at:
https://ustr.gov/trade-agreements/other-initiatives/environmental-goods-agreement (2016)

UNCTAD, The Green Economy: Trade and Sustainable Development Implications (2011)
UNCTAD, United Nations Forum for Sustainability Standards: A platform for international dialogue on voluntary
sustainability Standards, (2012)

UNDP, Making Global Trade Work for People, Chapter 1, Human Development and Trade, pp 21-47. (2003)

UNDP, Chapter 4, ‘International trade: unlocking the potential for human development’, pp 113-148.
(2005)

UNDP, Humanity Divided: Confronting Inequality in Developing Countries (2013)

UNEP, Towards a Green Economy: Pathways to Sustainable Development and Poverty Eradication (2011)

UNEP, Keeping Track of our Changing Environment: From Rio to Rio+20 (2011)

UNEP, Global Environment Outlook 5 (2012)

GREEN ECONOMY AND TRADE 30

 RESOURCES
UNEP, Green Economy and Trade. Trends, Challenges and Opportunities (2013)

UNEP/IISD, Trade and the Green Economy. A Handbook (third edn. 2014)

UNEP, South-South trade in renewable energy: A trade flow analysis of selected environmental goods (2014)

UNEP, Multiple Pathways to Sustainable Development: Initial findings from the Global South (2015a)

UNEP, Uncovering Pathways towards an Inclusive Green Economy. A Summary for Leaders (2015b)

UNEP, Global Trends in Renewable Energy Investment 2016 (2016)

Van der Bossche, P. and W. Zdouc, The Law and Policy of the World Trade Organisation (Cambridge
University Press, 3rd edn. 2013)

Viñuales, J. E., Foreign Investment and the Environment in International Law (Cambridge University Press,
2012).

Viñuales, J. E., ‘The Rise and Fall of Sustainable Development’ (2013) 22 RECIEL 3.

World Bank, World Bank Forecasts Global Poverty to Fall Below 10 percent for First Time; Major Hurdles Remain
in Goal to End Poverty by 2030, press release October 2015, available at: http://www.worldbank.org/en/
news/press-release/2015/10/04/world-bank-forecasts-global-poverty-to-fall-below-10-for-first-time-
major-hurdles-remain-in-goal-to-end-poverty-by-2030 (visited on 21 June 2016)

World Trade Organisation, Modest trade recovery to continue in 2015 and 2016 following three years of weak
expansion, press release April 2015, available at: https://www.wto.org/english/news_e/pres15_e/pr739_e.
pdf (visited on 21 June 2016)

GREEN ECONOMY AND TRADE 31

For further information:
PAGE Secretariat
UNEP/Economic and Trade Branch
11-13 Chemin des Anémones
CH-1219 Chatelaine-Geneva
Switzerland

www.un-page.org

greeneconomyunep

@PAGEXchange

page@unep.org