SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Hacettepe Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi / 2016 / Cilt: 34 - Sayı: 3

DOHA NEGOTIATIONS ON TRADE AND THE ENVIRONMENT:MARKET ACCESS FOR DEVELOPING COUNTRIES

Doha Ticaret ve Çevre Müzakereleri: Gelişmekte Olan Ülkeler için Pazara Giriş

Ahmet ŞAHİNÖZ
Ömer Tarık GENÇOSMANOĞLU
Pages
51–71
Publication Date
2022-10-18
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

Nevertheless developing countries should play an active part in the negotiations in order to lower non-tariff barriers for their exportable goods, recognizing that thay are more significant impediment to trade than tariffs.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Trade and environment inter-face is fundamental for developing economies which are experiencing difficulties in complying with the environmental trade measures of their export markets.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Doha Round brings this relation into the multilateral trade negotiating agenda for the first time and potentially provides developing countries with opportunities to develop their market access.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Nevertheless developing countries should play an active part in the negotiations in order to lower non-tariff barriers for their exportable goods, recognizing that thay are more significant impediment to trade than tariffs.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Sürdürülebilir kalkınma · çevresel ürünler

Abstract

Trade and environment inter-face is fundamental for developing economies which are experiencing difficulties in complying with the environmental trade measures of their export markets. Doha Round brings this relation into the multilateral trade negotiating agenda for the first time and potentially provides developing countries with opportunities to develop their market access. The talks on trade and environment taken place so far have shown some progess in reducing import tariffs on certain environmental goods. Nevertheless developing countries should play an active part in the negotiations in order to lower non-tariff barriers for their exportable goods, recognizing that thay are more significant impediment to trade than tariffs.

Özet

Ticaret ve çevre etkileşimi, ihraç pazarlarına yönelik çevresel önlemlere uyum sağlamada sorunlar yaşayan gelişmekte olan ülkeler bakımından ayrı bir önem taşımaktadır. Serbest ticaret ve çevre ilişkisinin ilk kez doğrudan ele alındığı Doha Kalkınma Turu müzakereleri, gelişmekte olan ülke ekonomileri için ihraç pazarlarına giriş fırsatları sunmaktadır. Bugüne kadar yapılan görüşmelerde, bazı çevresel mallarda tarife indirimi konusunda ilerleme sağlanmıştır. Buna karşılık, gelişmekte olan ülkelerin pazara giriş açısından kazanç sağlamaları, müzakerelerde daha aktif bir tutum izleyerek, ticarette tarifelere göre daha fazla engel oluşturan tarife-dışı önlemlerin azaltılmasına bağlıdır.

🔖

Cite This Article

ŞAHİNÖZ, A., GENÇOSMANOĞLU, Ö. T. (2022). DOHA NEGOTIATIONS ON TRADE AND THE ENVIRONMENT:MARKET ACCESS FOR DEVELOPING COUNTRIES. Hacettepe Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, Cilt: 34 - Sayı: 3, 51–71. https://ajindex.com/articles/533030

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (10)

  1. Agola, N. O. ve Awange, J. L. (2014), Globalized Poverty and Environment: 21st Century Challenges and Innovative Solutions, Springer Science & Business Media. Antweiler, W., Copeland, B. R., ve Taylor, M. S. (2001), “Is Free Trade Good for the Environment?”, American Economic Review, 91(4), 877-908.
  2. Arrow, K. et. al. (1995), “Economic growth, carrying capacity, and the environment”, Ecological Economics, 15(2), 91-95.
  3. Balineau, G., ve Melo, J. D. (2011), “Stalemate at the Negotiations on Environmental Goods and Services at the Doha Round”, FERDI Working Paper, 28.10.2011, Fondation pour les Études et Recherches sur le Développement International. Bernasconi-Osterwalder, N. vd. (2006), Environment and Trade. London: Earthscan. Beyers, C. J. (1992), “The U.S./Mexico Tuna Embargo Dispute: a Case Study of the GATT and Environmental Progress”, Maryland Journal of International Law, 16(2), 229-253. Bjørnera, T. B., Hansena, L. G., ve Russell, C. S. (2004), “Environmental labeling and consumers’ choice—an empirical analysis of the effect of the Nordic Swan”, Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 47(3), 411-434.
  4. Chaytor, B. ve Cameron, J. (1999), “The Treatment of Environmental Considerations in the World Trade Organization”, H. O. Bergesen, G. Parmann ve Ø. B. Thommessen (eds.), Yearbook of International Co-operation on Environment and Development 1999/2000, London: Earthscan Publications, 55-64.
  5. Claro, E. vd. (2007), “Trade in environmental goods and services and sustainable development: Domestic considerations and strategies for WTO negotiations”, Policy Discussion Paper, December, International Centre for Trade and Sustainable Development, Geneva. Cole, M. A. (2004), “Trade, the pollution haven hypothesis and the environmental Kuznets curve: examining the linkages”, Ecological Economics, 48(1), 71-81.
  6. Dean, J. M. (2002), “Does Trade Liberalization Harm the Environment? A New Test”, The Canadian Journal of Economics, 35(4), 819-842.
  7. Dinda, S. (2004), “Environmental Kuznets Curve Hypothesis: A Survey”, Ecological Economics, 49(4), 431-455.
  8. Ecolabel Index. (2015), Ecolabel Index,, E.T.: 28.05.2015.
  9. Ekonomi Bakanlığı (2015), Çok Taraflı ve Bölgesel İlişkiler,, E.T.: 02.06.2015.
  10. Fisher, R. (2002), “Trade and Environment in the FTAA: Learning from the NAFTA”, C. Deere, & E. Daniel (ed.), Greening the Americas: NAFTA's Lessons for Hemispheric Trade, MIT Press, 183-201. Fontagné, L., Kirchback, F. v., ve Mimouni, M. (2001), “A First Assessment of Enviro