Trade and Environment

Kahoot 3
Isha Das
Eviroland is very environmentally conscious and uses only renewable
sources for producing energy- including wind, hydral and solar sources.
Windland uses wind energy but is concerned about safety of birds while
operating wind farms. Requires all wind farm equipments to have “bird
safe” labels and advises dimensions and materials of the blades of the wind
farms to protect birds. Is this a technical regulation?
a) Yes. Mandatory conditions describing attributes of wind energy
equipment;
b) Yes. Voluntary conditions but as sole means of keeping birds safe;
c) No. Method of obtaining label not mandatory- this is the right
answer because there are no details on the method of obtaining the
label and the equipment dimensions are advisory.
d) No. Label does not identify a specific class of products and applies to
all wind farm equipments
Hogwartsland is very concerned about deforestation of rainforests. It
mandates that all wands sold in the domestic market have a “rainforest safe”
label. Hogwartsland does not have any domestic rainforest coverage. Is this
a valid measure under WTO law?
a) Yes. No discrimination.
b) Yes. This is a non-trade issue.
c) No. Imposes a QR on imports.
d) No. Violates NT and imposes a QR. This is the right answer, given
that Hogwartsland has no rainforests, all wands made in
Hogwartsland would be “rainforest safe” and the domestic industry
will obtain the “rainforest safe” label very easily. Imports, on the
other hand, would get impacted.
Hogwartsland is very concerned about deforestation of rainforests- domestic and abroad-
and wants to protect them to the maximum extent they can. It mandates that all wands sold
in the domestic market have a “rainforest safe” label. This “rainforest safe” label can be
obtained by importers and domestic producers if they can demonstrate that less than 5 acres
of rainforest cover was cut annually, in the annual production of wands in 2023.
Ravenclawland’s importers are unable to present this data because forest clearing data is not
collected there. This prevents them from exporting to Hogwartsland. Is this a violation of the
TBT Agreement?
a) Yes. Violates Art. 2.1.
b) Yes. Violates Art. 2.1 and 2.2.
c) No. Sole regulatory objective clear. This is the right answer. The measure is
mandatory, hence a TR. The TR does lead to a discrimination against
Ravenclawland’s products because the products are unable to obtain the label
(albeit due to their own actions). However, this discrimination arises from a sole
regulatory purpose- that of protecting rainforests. Hence it is a valid TBT measure.
d) No. Not a trade issue.
Troyland wants to ensure that fish stocks straddling their waters are not overfished.
For this reason, it has come up with “overfishing safe” labels for all salmon sold
domestically. To obtain the label, domestic and importing fishermen must
demonstrate that the salmon stocks do not deplete below 40% of 2022’s stock.
Troyland’s fishermen demonstrate this information based on overall fish stocks
however Spartaland’s fishermen demonstrate this information per capita. Troyland
authorities do not confer the “overfishing safe” label to Spartaland’s salmon.
Spartaland considers this to violate WTO law. Decide:
a) Yes. Violation of Art. 2.1 of TBT and Article III:4 of GATT. This is the right
answer. The labelling requirement is mandatory, hence is a TR. The actions
of Troyland’s authorities regarding granting of the TR are discriminatory
against imports and do not stem from a sole regulatory purpose, as even
Spartaland’s actions could fulfil Troyland’s objectives. Yet, Spartaland’s
measures are not considered equivalent.
b) Yes. Violation of Art. 2.1 of the TBT Agreement and Art. III:4 and I:1 of GATT
c) Yes. Violation of Art. 2.2 TBT and III:2 of GATT
d) No violation
Blumenland has a wide variety of flora. Evidence demonstrates that bees are very attracted to the flowers in
Blumenland and in turn, help in pollination. For this reason, bees are crucial to Blumenland, and they aim to
protect them at all costs. Blumenland protects bees by safeguarding their hives. It also requires imports of all
flower and flower-containing products to have a “BeeSafe” label. This label can be obtained by demonstrating that
bees are protected by protecting their hives, planting bee gardens, not using pesticides that kill bees or in other
equivalent ways. Lalaland also has a wide variety of flora. They use domestically grown flowers for a variety of
industries- like incense, soap, beauty products etc. In the process of plucking flowers amass, the bee population in
Lalaland is depleting. To protect the bee population, Lalaland imposes a fine of $300 if one party kills more than
5000 bees. Blumenland does not consider Lalaland’s measure as equivalent and does not confer the label. Does this
action violate WTO law?
a) Yes. Violates 2.1,2.2 of TBT and III:4 of GATT;
b) Yes. Violates 2.1, 2.2. of TBT and III:4 and I:1 of GATT;
c) No. Sole regulatory objective clear. The measure is mandatory, hence a TR. The TR does lead to
a discrimination against Lalaland’s products because the products are unable to obtain the
label (albeit due to their own actions). However, this discrimination arises from a sole
regulatory purpose- that of protecting bees at all costs. Whereas Lalaland’s measure would
allow at least 4,999 bees to be killed before any fine is imposed. It is also extremely impractical.
Thus, Spartaland’s measure is not a viable alternative. Hence its rejection as not equivalent is
valid under the TBT Agreement.
d) No. Not a trade issue.