trade and environment research paper

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

• View all journals
• Explore content
• About the journal
• Publish with us
• Sign up for alerts
• Published: 13 July 2020

Impacts of international trade on global sustainable development

• Zhenci Xu 1 , 2   na1 ,
• Yingjie Li 1 , 3   na1 ,
• Sophia N. Chau   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-6504-2020 1 ,
• Thomas Dietz 1 , 3 , 4 ,
• Canbing Li 5 ,
• Luwen Wan   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-6414-4500 6 ,
• Jindong Zhang 7 ,
• Liwei Zhang   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-2195-1070 8 ,
• Yunkai Li 9 ,
• Min Gon Chung   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-7177-7189 1 , 3 &
• Jianguo Liu   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-6344-0087 1  

Nature Sustainability volume  3 ,  pages 964–971 ( 2020 ) Cite this article

8675 Accesses

144 Citations

89 Altmetric

Metrics details

• Ecosystem services

The United Nations has adopted 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) with 169 targets. International trade has substantial influences on global sustainability and human well-being. However, little is known about the impacts of international trade on progress towards achieving the SDG targets. Here we show that international trade positively affected global progress towards achieving nine environment-related SDG targets. International trade improved the SDG target scores of most (65%) of the evaluated developed countries but reduced the SDG target scores of over 60% of the evaluated developing countries. The SDG target scores of developed countries were higher than those of developing countries when trade was accounted for, but those scores would be lower than those of developing countries if trade were not a factor. Furthermore, trade between distant countries contributed more to achieving these global SDG targets than trade between adjacent countries. Compared with adjacent trade, distant trade was more beneficial for achieving SDG targets in developed countries, but it more negatively affected SDG target scores in developing countries. Our research suggests that enhancing the accounting for and management of virtual resources embedded in trade is essential for achieving and balancing sustainable development for all.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Access Nature and 54 other Nature Portfolio journals

Get Nature+, our best-value online-access subscription

24,99 € / 30 days

cancel any time

Subscribe to this journal

Receive 12 digital issues and online access to articles

111,21 € per year

only 9,27 € per issue

Rent or buy this article

Prices vary by article type

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Similar content being viewed by others

Global transboundary synergies and trade-offs among Sustainable Development Goals from an integrated sustainability perspective

Huijuan Xiao, Sheng Bao, … Jianguo Liu

Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs): Are we successful in turning trade-offs into synergies?

Christian Kroll, Anne Warchold & Prajal Pradhan

Assessing regional performance for the Sustainable Development Goals in Italy

Idiano D’Adamo, Massimo Gastaldi, … Piergiuseppe Morone

Data availability

All the source data described in the ‘ Data ’ section can be obtained from the World Input–Output Database (WIOD) and World Bank. The intermediate data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request. Source data are provided with this paper.

Code availability

All computer code used in conducting the analyses summarized in this paper is available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.

Global Indicator Framework for the Sustainable Development Goals and Targets of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development Report No. A/RES/71/313 (United Nations Statistics Division, 2017).

Steen-Olsen, K., Weinzettel, J., Cranston, G., Ercin, A. E. & Hertwich, E. G. Carbon, land, and water footprint accounts for the European Union: consumption, production, and displacements through international trade. Environ. Sci. Technol. 46 , 10883–10891 (2012).

CAS   Google Scholar  

Blanco, E. & Razzaque, J. Ecosystem services and human well-being in a globalized world: assessing the role of law. Hum. Rights Q. 31 , 692–720 (2009).

Google Scholar  

Dalin, C., Konar, M., Hanasaki, N., Rinaldo, A. & Rodriguez-Iturbe, I. Evolution of the global virtual water trade network. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 109 , 5989–5994 (2012).

Feng, K. et al. Outsourcing CO 2 within China. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 110 , 11654–11659 (2013).

Lenzen, M. et al. International trade drives biodiversity threats in developing nations. Nature 486 , 109–112 (2012).

Liu, J. Forest sustainability in China and implications for a telecoupled world. Asia Pac. Policy Stud. 1 , 230–250 (2014).

Smith, R. D. Trade and public health: facing the challenges of globalisation. J. Epidemiol. Community Health 60 , 650–651 (2006).

Laboy-Nieves, E. N., Schaffner, F. C., Abdelhadi, A. & Goosen, M. F. A. Environmental Management, Sustainable Development and Human Health (CRC Press, 2009).

Givens, J. E., Huang, X. & Jorgenson, A. K. Ecologically unequal exchange: a theory of global environmental injustice. Sociol. Compass 13 , e12693 (2019).

Asheim, G. B. Hartwick’s rule in open economies. Can. J. Econ. 19 , 395–402 (1986).

Proops, J. L., Atkinson, G., Schlotheim, B. F. V. & Simon, S. International trade and the sustainability footprint: a practical criterion for its assessment. Ecol. Econ. 28 , 75–97 (1999).

Atkinson, G., Agarwala, M. & Muñoz, P. in Inclusive Wealth Report 2012: Measuring Progress Toward Sustainability (eds UNU-IHDP & UNEP) 87–117 (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2012).

Pendrill, F., Persson, U. M., Godar, J. & Kastner, T. Deforestation displaced: trade in forest-risk commodities and the prospects for a global forest transition. Environ. Res. Lett. 14 , 055003 (2019).

Harris, J. & White, A. The sociology of global health: a literature review. Soc. Dev. 5 , 9–30 (2019).

Anderson, E. W. International Boundaries: A Geopolitical Atlas (Routledge, 2003).

Colson, D. A. & Smith, R. W. International Maritime Boundaries Vol. 5 (Martinus Nijhoff, 2005).

Liu, J. et al. Systems integration for global sustainability. Science 347 , 1258832 (2015).

Liu, J. et al. Framing sustainability in a telecoupled world. Ecol. Soc. 18 , 26 (2013).

Liu, J. Integration across a metacoupled world. Ecol. Soc. 22 , 29 (2017).

Gao, L. & Bryan, B. A. Finding pathways to national-scale land-sector sustainability. Nature 544 , 217–222 (2017).

Chaudhary, A., Gustafson, D. & Mathys, A. Multi-indicator sustainability assessment of global food systems. Nat. Commun. 9 , 848 (2018).

Singh, R. K., Murty, H. R., Gupta, S. K. & Dikshit, A. K. An overview of sustainability assessment methodologies. Ecol. Indic. 15 , 281–299 (2012).

Moran, D. D., Wackernagel, M., Kitzes, J. A., Goldfinger, S. H. & Boutaud, A. Measuring sustainable development—nation by nation. Ecol. Econ. 64 , 470–474 (2008).

Siche, J. R., Agostinho, F., Ortega, E. & Romeiro, A. Sustainability of nations by indices: comparative study between environmental sustainability index, ecological footprint and the emergy performance indices. Ecol. Econ. 66 , 628–637 (2008).

Cord, A. F., Seppelt, R. & Turner, W. Monitor ecosystem services from space. Nature 525 , 33 (2015).

Chen, B. et al. Global land–water nexus: agricultural land and freshwater use embodied in worldwide supply chains. Sci. Total Environ. 613–614 , 931–943 (2018).

Oita, A. et al. Substantial nitrogen pollution embedded in international trade. Nat. Geosci. 9 , 111–115 (2016).

Wiedmann, T. O. et al. The material footprint of nations. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 112 , 6271–6276 (2015).

Jorgenson, A. Environment, development, and ecologically unequal exchange. Sustainability 8 , 227 (2016).

World Bank Open Data (World Bank Group, 2017); https://data.worldbank.org/

Meyfroidt, P., Lambin, E. F., Erb, K.-H. & Hertel, T. W. Globalization of land use: distant drivers of land change and geographic displacement of land use. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 5 , 438–444 (2013).

Peters, G. P., Minx, J. C., Weber, C. L. & Edenhofer, O. Growth in emission transfers via international trade from 1990 to 2008. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 108 , 8903–8908 (2011).

Le Quéré, C. et al. Trends in the sources and sinks of carbon dioxide. Nat. Geosci. 2 , 831–836 (2009).

Kanemoto, K., Moran, D., Lenzen, M. & Geschke, A. International trade undermines national emission reduction targets: new evidence from air pollution. Glob. Environ. Change 24 , 52–59 (2014).

Weinzettel, J., Hertwich, E. G., Peters, G. P., Steen-Olsen, K. & Galli, A. Affluence drives the global displacement of land use. Glob. Environ. Change 23 , 433–438 (2013).

Afionis, S., Sakai, M., Scott, K., Barrett, J. & Gouldson, A. Consumption‐based carbon accounting: does it have a future? WIREs Clim. Change 8 , e438 (2017).

Liu, J. et al. Spillover systems in a telecoupled Anthropocene: typology, methods, and governance for global sustainability. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 33 , 58–69 (2018).

Vandenbergh, M. P. & Gilligan, J. M. Beyond Politics: The Private Governance Response to Climate Change (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2017).

Sachs, J., Schmidt-Traub, G., Kroll, C., Durand-Delacre, D. & Teksoz, K. SDG Index and Dashboards Report 2017 (Bertelsmann Stiftung and SDSN, 2017).

Timmer, M. P., Dietzenbacher, E., Los, B., Stehrer, R. & Vries, G. J. An illustrated user guide to the world input–output database: the case of global automotive production. Rev. Int. Econ. 23 , 575–605 (2015).

Kander, A., Jiborn, M., Moran, D. D. & Wiedmann, T. O. National greenhouse-gas accounting for effective climate policy on international trade. Nat. Clim. Change 5 , 431–435 (2015).

Zhong, W., An, H., Fang, W., Gao, X. & Dong, D. Features and evolution of international fossil fuel trade network based on value of emergy. Appl. Energy 165 , 868–877 (2016).

Genty, A., Arto, I. & Neuwahl, F. Final Database of Environmental Satellite Accounts: Technical Report on their Compilation WIOD Deliverable 4.6, Documentation (WIOD, 2012); https://go.nature.com/3g9Bb05

Report of the Inter-agency and Expert Group on Sustainable Development Goal Indicators (UN, 2016); https://unstats.un.org/unsd/statcom/47th-session/documents/2016-2012-IAEG-SDGs-E.pdf

Zhao, X. et al. Physical and virtual water transfers for regional water stress alleviation in China. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 112 , 1031–1035 (2015).

Wood, S. A., Smith, M. R., Fanzo, J., Remans, R. & DeFries, R. S. Trade and the equitability of global food nutrient distribution. Nat. Sustain. 1 , 34–37 (2018).

Yang, H. & Zehnder, A. “Virtual water”: an unfolding concept in integrated water resources management. Water Resour. Res. 43 , W12301 (2007).

Allan, J. A. Virtual water: a strategic resource. Ground Water 36 , 545–547 (1998).

Xu, Z. et al. Evolution of multiple global virtual material flows. Sci. Total Environ. 658 , 659–668 (2019).

Xu, Z. et al. Assessing progress towards sustainable development over space and time. Nature 577 , 74–78 (2020).

Handbook on Constructing Composite Indicators: Methodology and User Guide (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, Joint Research Centre, 2016).

Fullman, N. et al. Measuring progress and projecting attainment on the basis of past trends of the health-related Sustainable Development Goals in 188 countries: an analysis from the Global Burden of Disease Study 2016. Lancet 390 , 1423–1459 (2017).

Schmidt-Traub, G., Kroll, C., Teksoz, K., Durand-Delacre, D. & Sachs, J. D. National baselines for the Sustainable Development Goals assessed in the SDG Index and Dashboards. Nat. Geosci. 10 , 547–555 (2017).

Sachs, J., Schmidt-Traub, G., Kroll, C., Lafortune, G. & Fuller, G. Sustainable Development Report 2019 (Bertelsmann Stiftung and SDSN, 2019).

Human Development Data (UNDP, 2017); http://hdr.undp.org/en/data

Nielsen, L. Classifications of Countries Based on Their Level of Development: How It Is Done and How It Could Be Done IMF Working Paper (IMF, 2011).

Timmer, M. P., Dietzenbacher, E., Los, B., Stehrer, R. & de Vries, G. J. An illustrated user guide to the world input–output database: the case of global automotive production. Rev. Int. Econ. 23 , 575–605 (2015).

Indicators and a Monitoring Framework for the Sustainable Development Goals: Launching a Data Revolution for the SDGs (SDSN, 2015).

R Core Team R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing v.3.4.4 (R Foundation for Statistical Computing, 2018).

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank R. M. Scarrow and S. Nichols for their constructive comments that have greatly helped improve the paper. We are grateful for financial support from the National Science Foundation (grant nos DEB-1924111 and DEB-1340812), Michigan State University, Michigan AgBioResearch, the Environmental Science and Policy Program (ESPP) Doctoral Recruiting Fellowships and the China Scholarship Council.

Author information

These authors contributed equally: Zhenci Xu, Yingjie Li.

Authors and Affiliations

Center for Systems Integration and Sustainability, Department of Fisheries and Wildlife, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI, USA

Zhenci Xu, Yingjie Li, Sophia N. Chau, Thomas Dietz, Min Gon Chung & Jianguo Liu

School for Environment and Sustainability, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA

Environmental Science and Policy Program, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI, USA

Yingjie Li, Thomas Dietz & Min Gon Chung

Department of Sociology, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI, USA

Thomas Dietz

Department of Electrical Engineering, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai, China

Department of Earth and Environmental Sciences, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI, USA

Key Laboratory of Southwest China Wildlife Resources Conservation, China West Normal University, Nanchong, China

Jindong Zhang

School of Geography and Tourism, Shaanxi Normal University, Xi’an, China

Liwei Zhang

College of Water Resources and Civil Engineering, China Agricultural University, Beijing, China

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

Z.X., Yingjie Li and J.L. designed the research. Z.X. and Yingjie Li contributed the data. Yingjie Li and Z.X. performed the data analysis and interpreted the results with support from S.N.C., J.L., T.D., C.L., L.W., J.Z., L.Z., Yunkai Li and M.G.C. Yingjie Li, Z.X. and J.L. wrote the manuscript with contributions from S.N.C. and T.D. All authors reviewed and commented on the manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jianguo Liu .

Ethics declarations

Competing interests.

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary information

Supplementary information.

Supplementary Figs. 1–7 and Tables 1 and 2.

Reporting Summary

Supplementary data 1.

Excel sheets for Supplementary Tables 1 and 2.

Source data

Source data fig. 1.

Numerical source data.

Source Data Fig. 2

Source data fig. 3, rights and permissions.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Xu, Z., Li, Y., Chau, S.N. et al. Impacts of international trade on global sustainable development. Nat Sustain 3 , 964–971 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-020-0572-z

Download citation

Received : 23 July 2018

Accepted : 12 June 2020

Published : 13 July 2020

Issue Date : November 2020

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-020-0572-z

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

This article is cited by

Intranational synergies and trade-offs reveal common and differentiated priorities of sustainable development goals in china.

• Chaoyang Wu

Nature Communications (2024)

• Huijuan Xiao
• Jianguo Liu

Effect of trade on global aquatic food consumption patterns

• Kangshun Zhao
• Steven D. Gaines

Indian interstate trade exacerbates nutrient pollution in food production hubs

• Shekhar Sharan Goyal
• Raviraj Dave
• Udit Bhatia

Communications Earth & Environment (2024)

Global river economic belts can become more sustainable by considering economic and ecological processes

• Alistair George Liam Borthwick

Quick links

• Explore articles by subject
• Guide to authors
• Editorial policies

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Search the site

Links to social media channels

Trade and the Environment: The Search for Sustainable Solutions

Still Only One Earth: Lessons from 50 years of UN sustainable development policy

While interactions between trade and the environment are complex, pursuing policy coherence is key to reversing degradation while leaving no one behind. A core dilemma is ensuring stricter environmental rules do not create competitive disadvantages, or negatively affect the least developed countries. Recent country-led initiatives on trade and environmental sustainability, trade and plastics pollution, and fossil fuel subsidies, plus the ongoing talks on fisheries subsidies, offer hope for breaking the years-long deadlock on trade and the environment. ( Download PDF ) ( See all policy briefs ) ( Subscribe to ENB )

Roughly every minute, USD 11 million in subsidies flow into coal, oil, and natural gas, according to the International Monetary Fund (IMF). In fact, in 2020 alone, fossil fuel subsidies were worth USD 5.9 trillion or about 6.8% of global gross domestic product (GDP). This is expected to rise to 7.4% of GDP by 2025 in stark contrast to scientific calls for a carbon neutral economy by 2050 (Parry, Black & Vernon, 2021).

Growing fossil fuel subsidies are only one example of a worrisome trend. Instead of investing in a green and forward-looking recovery with COVID-19 economic stimulus packages, decision makers are continuing to funnel public money toward unsustainable patterns of development. Without clear pathways toward decarbonized economies and innovative ways to measure economic success to capture these unsustainable patterns, existential risks to future generations increase.

In the context of a planetary emergency characterized by multiple crises—climate, biodiversity, pollution, and social inequalities—the relationship between trade and environment merits further examination. While the interactions between trade and environment are complex, pursuing policy coherence is imperative to respond to this emergency while leaving no one behind.

The Ambivalent Relationship between Trade and Environment

In preparation for the 1972 United Nations Conference on the Human Environment , the Secretariat of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT), the multilateral treaty charged with promoting free trade, was asked to contribute an assessment of concerns around economic growth and growing pollution. Beginning in the 1960s, social movements helped raise awareness about human-caused pollution and demanded stronger environmental protection. While governments responded with science-based legislation designed to protect the environment, trade rules had yet to be re-examined.

In 1971, GATT Director-General Olivier Long presented the GATT assessment, “ Industrial Pollution Control and International Trade .” The study reflected the concern of trade officials with environmental policies, which were perceived as potential obstacles to free trade and could constitute “green protectionism.” In response, the GATT created the Group on Environmental Measures and International Trade (known as the “EMIT” group) in November 1971. Curiously, this group could only convene at the request of GATT members, which did not happen for 20 years. Finally, in 1991, the European Free Trade Association members broke the silence and asked for a meeting because another large environmental meeting was on the radar: the 1992 United Nations Conference on Environment and Development ( Earth Summit ) in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil (WTO, n.d.).

Heading into the Earth Summit, the conflict between environmental protection policies and trade came to the fore in the 1991 “ Tuna-Dolphin ” dispute between Mexico and the US. The case focused on the US embargo on tuna imported from Mexico caught using “purse seine” nets that could entangle and kill dolphins and other marine mammals. The GATT dispute settlement panel favored Mexico, which argued the embargo was inconsistent with international trade rules. Its ruling was criticized by environmental groups arguing trade rules were an obstacle to environmental protection (WTO, n.d.).

The Earth Summit highlighted the role of international trade in alleviating poverty and combating environmental degradation. The resulting programme of action, Agenda 21 , and the Rio Declaration on Environment and Development , like Stockholm before it, promoted an international trading system that considers the needs of developing countries and sustained economic development.

States should cooperate to promote a supportive and open international economic system that would lead to economic growth and sustainable development in all countries, to better address the problems of environmental degradation. Rio Declaration , Principle 12

The Earth Summit, however, did have an impact on the outcome of the GATT’s 1986–1994 Uruguay Round of trade negotiations. The Uruguay Round established the World Trade Organization (WTO) and brought about the biggest reform of the world’s trading system since the GATT’s establishment after World War II. And trade-related environmental issues were on the agenda.

The WTO and the Committee on Trade and Environment

The preamble to the Marrakesh Agreement , which established the WTO, refers to the importance of sustainable development. In Marrakesh in April 1994, ministers also signed a “ Decision on Trade and Environment ,” stating: “There should not be, nor need be, any policy contradiction between upholding and safeguarding an open, non-discriminatory and equitable multilateral trading system on the one hand, and acting for the protection of the environment, and the promotion of sustainable development on the other.”

The decision also created the WTO Committee on Trade and Environment (CTE), which was charged with identifying the relationship between trade measures and environmental measures to promote sustainable development and make appropriate recommendations on whether any modifications of the multilateral trading system are required. To date, the CTE has yet to agree on any recommendations.

Item 1 of the CTE’s mandate, addresses the relationship between the primary goal of the WTO—facilitating trade—and the objectives of multilateral environmental agreements (MEAs). According to the WTO , 15 MEAs incorporate trade measures to help them achieve their goals. This means the agreements can use restraints on trade in particular substances or products. Although this represents a relatively small number of MEAs, they include some of the most important, including the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES); the Montreal Protocol ; the Basel, Rotterdam, Stockholm , and Minamata Conventions; and the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety (Chasek & Downie, 2021, p. 268). However, to date no formal dispute involving a measure under any MEA has been brought to the WTO.

A second issue, contained in Item 3(b), looks at GATT Article XX , which lays out specific cases where WTO members may be exempted from GATT rules. Concerning the environment, WTO members can adopt measures necessary to protect human, animal or plant life or health (paragraph (b)) or relate to the conservation of exhaustible natural resources (paragraph (g)). But can countries discriminate against goods whose production involves negative ecological consequences (e.g., pollution, deforestation, carbon emissions)? On this matter, there are competing views.

For example, under Paragraph 32 of the 2001 Doha Ministerial Declaration , the CTE was mandated to identify areas of the WTO in need of clarification, including ecolabels, which identify products that meet specific environmental performance criteria. Many developed countries and environmental organizations see ecolabels as a tool to inform consumers that the production of this good or service is environmentally sustainable. According to the WTO , its members generally agree ecolabels can be useful for consumers, and tend to restrict trade less than other methods, especially if these schemes are voluntary, based on the market, and transparent. However, others are concerned ecolabels could be used to protect domestic producers, and discriminate against small businesses and developing countries, thus restricting their market access.

A third issue is that the WTO and the CTE do not have a strong science-policy interface . The WTO lacks a “consistent, principled manner in which to take into account the scientific uncertainty” underlying policy decisions that must determine whether domestic environmental policies are legitimate or a form of trade protectionism (Green & Epps, 2007, p. 286). Furthermore, the Uruguay Round negotiations only applied a scientific evidence requirement to health measures, specifically the Technical Barriers to Trade Agreement and the Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures ( SPS Agreement ), and not to environmental measures (Green & Epps, 2007).

WTO Committee on Trade and Environment Mandate (1994)

Item 1: The relationship between the provisions of the multilateral trading system and trade measures for environmental purposes, including those pursuant to multilateral environmental agreements.

Item 2: The relationship between environmental policies relevant to trade and environmental measures with significant trade effects and the provisions of the multilateral trading system.

Item 3(a): The relationship between the provisions of the multilateral trading system and charges and taxes for environmental purposes. 

Item 3(b): The relationship between the provisions of the multilateral trading system and requirements for environmental purposes relating to products, including standards and technical regulations, packaging, labelling, and recycling.

Item 4: The provisions of the multilateral trading system with respect to the transparency of trade measures used for environmental purposes and environmental measures and requirements which have significant trade effects.

Item 5: The relationship between the dispute settlement mechanisms in the multilateral trading system and those found in multilateral environmental agreements.

Item 6: The effect of environmental measures on market access, especially in relation to developing countries, in particular to the least developed among them, and environmental benefits of removing trade restrictions and distortions.

Item 7: The issue of exports of domestically prohibited goods.

Item 8: The relevant provisions of the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights.

Item 9: The work programme envisaged in the Decision on Trade in Services and the Environment.

Item 10: Input to the relevant bodies in respect of appropriate arrangements for relations with intergovernmental and non-governmental organizations referred to in Article V of the WTO.

Subsidies and Sustainable Development

Then there are subsidies. A subsidy is money given by a government to assist an industry or business so that the price of a commodity or service remains low or competitive. Subsidies distort markets by failing to reflect the true costs of production, including environmental harm. Subsidies on goods traded internationally also give unfair price advantages compared to similar goods from countries without subsidies. Yet despite widespread condemnation, the actual removal of subsidies remains a contentious topic . The principal subsidy sectors in question are agriculture, fossil fuels, fisheries, and forestry.

Many hoped trade and environment-related decisions would be part of the outcome of the Doha Development Round of trade negotiations. The 2001 Doha Ministerial Declaration included more language on sustainable development and environmental issues than any of its predecessors. In addition to liberalizing global agricultural trade by reducing agricultural subsidies and addressing fishing subsidies, the Doha Round sought to further reduce barriers to trade in services, such as business and finance, and nonagricultural goods (Chasek & Downie, 2021, pp. 267-268). However, even after 20 years, WTO members have not concluded these negotiations.

Getting the nexus between trade and the environment right requires addressing subsidies. For example, governments around the world provide over USD 600 billion per year in subsidies to support their agricultural sectors. However, research shows this support does not align with achieving collective benefits under the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development and its Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) in improving food security and nutrition, reducing poverty, combating inequalities, decarbonizing economies, or protecting biodiversity. Allocating resources fairly and sustainably, rather than through subsidies that generally benefit industrial agriculture, can support an SDG-based agri-food transformation by making food and agriculture markets more resilient to shocks and accessible to people in vulnerable situations. The climate crisis also necessitates market actors include environmental costs in the food system (FAO, 2018). To do that, coherent policies are required across the entire food value chain.

Fisheries subsidies also offer somber examples of unsustainable agri-food systems. “If we were to remove all harmful fisheries subsidies we could have a 12.5% increase in fish biomass , or 35 million metric tonnes of fish by 2050,” stated Peter Thomson, the UN Secretary-General’s Special Envoy for the Ocean. Moreover, one in five fish caught may come from illegal, unreported, and unregulated (IUU) fishing. Some estimates suggest eliminating fishing subsidies would significantly decrease high seas overfishing, 77% of which is due to activities of fishing vessels from China, Taiwan, Japan, Indonesia, Spain, and the Republic of Korea. Eliminating these subsidies would not only accelerate the implementation of the SDGs but would restore depleted fisheries and protect the rights of small-scale artisanal fishers.

I am convinced that eliminating these subsidies is the single most important measure governments can take to reverse the plundering of the fish in the ocean… I am still waiting for WTO members to do the right thing. Peter Thomson , UN Secretary-General's Special Envoy for the Ocean

Fossil fuel subsidies also have cross-cutting effects on sustainable development, in particular climate change, poverty, and governance. Fossil fuel subsidy reform is seen not only as a macroeconomic necessity, but also as a valuable tool for tackling the climate crisis (Bassetti & Landau, 2021). Indeed, one study found eliminating fossil fuel subsidies alone would reduce global greenhouse emissions up to 10% by 2030 and between 6.4% and 8.2% by 2050.

With science urging leaders to become carbon neutral by 2050 , much needs to change quickly. For example, the Paris Agreement must deliver a long-term reduction in greenhouse gas emissions from cross-border transport and trade, at the same time the WTO is facilitating their expansion. Solving the climate puzzle cannot be done in isolation .

Optimizing Trade Governance for Sustainable Development

Growing pressure for new rules and agreements that meaningfully consider sustainable development and trade is challenging multilateralism, especially at the WTO, which is haunted by a two-decade deadlock (Hopewell, 2016). How can the WTO emerge from this paralysis? Several recent initiatives offer hope.

In November 2020, 50 WTO members announced they would organize structured discussions to advance work on trade and environmental sustainability. In the year that followed, the “ Trade and Environmental Sustainability Structured Discussions ,” coordinated by Canada and Costa Rica, met five times with the participation of 71 members representing 82% of world trade. In December 2021, the group issued a Ministerial Statement , which sets out future work for the initiative in areas such as trade and climate change, trade in environmental goods and services, circular economy, and sustainable supply chains. It also sets a road map for advancing discussions (WTO, 2021a).

Similarly, in November 2020, WTO members established an informal dialogue on plastics pollution and environmentally sustainable plastics trade to promote trade as a tool for reining in plastics pollution . Another December 2021 Ministerial Statement spells out the way forward in support of global efforts to reduce plastics pollution and transition toward an environmentally sustainable plastics trade (WTO, 2021a).

In a third Ministerial Statement on fossil fuel subsidies, 45 WTO members affirmed their intention to phase out inefficient fossil fuel subsidies, consider the specific needs of developing countries, and advance discussions at the WTO (WTO, 2021a).

While this is positive news, the WTO still faces challenges moving forward. One such challenge is the diverse views on the pertinence of its existence and competing narratives on the value of globalization and free trade (Roberts & Lamp, 2021). In this basket of competing narratives, the view that everyone loses with the current support for unsustainable economic growth must be considered. On one hand, incoherent trade policies could lead to more resource use and pollution, putting vulnerable communities at a disadvantage and, ultimately, accelerating an existential threat to humanity.

An Agreement on Fisheries Subsidies, one that will help both the planet and people, is within our grasp. It is also an opportunity to build trust in multilateralism, and the opportunity for WTO members to succeed in negotiating new rules for the 21st century. Ambassador Santiago Wills , Colombia, Chair of the Fisheries Subsidies Negotiations

On the other hand, defenders of free trade argue value chains lead to more efficient use of resources globally. They note it all depends on domestic environmental policies. The main challenge is to shift the narrative regarding the trade-environment nexus. More emphasis on how to address harmful impacts of trade or trade agreements on the environment deserves consideration, while recognizing the needs of developing countries. (Deere Birkbeck, 2021).

Going forward, the WTO could accomplish the following.

• Place sustainable development in the WTO at the same level as its goals on trade liberalization. Harmful subsidies, for example, must be considered against their effects on the health and resilience of people and the planet, instead of being assessed exclusively through their degree of trade disruption.  
• Increase science-policy interactions at the WTO to enhance policy analysis of environmental effects related to trade in partnership with the UN system and other stakeholders. The WTO would benefit from a more influential, systematic, and inclusive science-policy interface that could analyze cases where trade supports the environment, such as through green products and technology, and how the removal of perverse subsidies can contribute to achieving sustainable development.  
• Use current trade rules to advance the Paris Agreement on climate change. The WTO needs to consider the impact of inefficient fossil fuel subsidies on climate action and strengthen countries’ disclosure rules.  
• Accelerate agreement on decisions related to fisheries subsidies . WTO negotiations on fisheries subsidies have been ongoing for 20 years. The adoption of the SDGs in 2015, particularly target 14.6 on fisheries subsidies, has given new momentum to the talks, which many hope will conclude in 2022 (WTO, 2021b). Restoring overexploited fish stocks would increase the economic benefits by a factor of almost 30, from USD 3 billion to USD 86 billion and reducing the global fishing effort by 5% a year for a 10-year period would allow this level to be reached in about 30 years.

Trade rules that ignore the negative impacts of trade on our planet, our only home, are counterproductive. Despite the substantive knowledge about the growing risks of social and environmental tipping-points, several trade policy-induced crises are creating new sources of risks and uncertainties. The trade wars between the US and China and vaccine inequities during the COVID-19 crisis are two emblematic examples.

Change is the only certainty we have. While structural transformations do not happen overnight, applying a systemic approach to the trade-environment interface is not only cost-effective but an essential step toward the survival of our planet.

Works Consulted

Bassetti, V., & Landau, K. (2021). Seizing opportunities for fuel subsidy reform. Brookings Institution. https://www.brookings.edu/blog/up-front/2021/02/25/seizing-opportunities-for-fuel-subsidy-reform/

Chasek, P., & Downie, D. (2021). Global environmental politics (8th ed.). Routledge.

De Paula, N. (2021). Breaking the silos for planetary health – A roadmap for a resilient post-pandemic world . Palgrave McMillan.

Deere Birkbeck, C. (2021). Greening international trade: Pathways forward. Global Governance Centre and the Forum on Trade, Environment & the SDGs. https://tradehub.earth/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/Greening-International-Trade_18.07.2021.pdf

Food and Agriculture Organization. (2018). The state of agricultural commodity markets 2018. https://www.fao.org/publications/soco/2018/en/

Food and Agriculture Organization, International Fund for Agriculture Development, United Nations Children’s Fund, World Food Programme & World Health Organization. (2021). The state of food security and nutrition in the world 2021. https://www.fao.org/publications/sofi/2021/en/

High Level Panel of Experts on Food Security and Nutrition of the Committee on World Food Security. (2020). Food security and nutrition: Building a global narrative towards 2030. https://www.fao.org/cfs/cfs-hlpe/reports/en/

Hopewell, K. (2016). Breaking the WTO: How emerging powers disrupted the neoliberal project . Stanford University Press.

Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2019). Recommendation of the Council on Policy Coherence for Sustainable Development. OECD/LEGAL/0381. https://legalinstruments.oecd.org/en/instruments/OECD-LEGAL-0381

Parry, I., Black, S., & Vernon, N. (2021). Still not getting energy prices right: A global and country update of fossil fuel subsidies. IMF Working Paper. https://www.imf.org/en/Publications/WP/Issues/2021/09/23/Still-Not-Getting-Energy-Prices-Right-A-Global-and-Country-Update-of-Fossil-Fuel-Subsidies-466004

Roberts, A., & Lamp, N. (2021). Six faces of globalization: Who wins, who loses, and why it matters . Harvard University Press.

Santarius, T., Dalkmann, H., Steigenberger, M., & Vogelpohl K. (2004). Balancing trade and environment: An ecological reform of the WTO as a challenge in sustainable global governance. Wuppertal Institut für Klima. https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/35133134.pdf

World Trade Organization. (2021a). State of play 15 December 2021: Trade and the environment. https://www.wto.org/english/thewto_e/minist_e/mc12_e/briefing_notes_e/bfenvir_e.htm

World Trade Organization. (2021b). Draft agreement on fisheries subsidies submitted for ministers’ attention ahead of MC12. https://www.wto.org/english/news_e/news21_e/fish_25nov21_e.htm

World Trade Organization. (n.d.) Early years: Emerging environment debate in GATT/WTO. https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/envir_e/hist1_e.htm

Additional downloads

Government of Norway, Ministry of Foreign Affairs

Government of Sweden, Ministry of Environment

Government of Canada, Global Affairs Canada

Deep dive details, you might also be interested in, iisd to host trade and sustainability hub.

Join us at this event, alongside the WTO Ministerial, as we work to chart a new path for the greatest challenges of our time.

March 1, 2021

Preparing for the Next Chapter in Trade and Sustainable Development

Sustainable development policy has come a long way in 25 years, but we should not become complacent.

October 7, 2020

IISD Trade and Sustainability Review, Volume 1, Issue 4, November 2021

This fourth edition of the IISD Trade and Sustainability Review covers a range of timely policy issues related to trade and sustainable development in the lead-up to the WTO's 12th Ministerial Conference.

November 26, 2021

IISD Annual Report 2022–2023

At IISD, we’ve been working for more than three decades to create a world where people and the planet thrive. As the climate crisis unfolds on our doorsteps and irreversible tipping points loom, our team has been focused more than ever on impact.

Annual Report

October 31, 2023

Assessing the impact of international trade on ecological footprint in Belt and Road Initiative countries

• Zhou, Dejun
• Kongkuah, Maxwell
• Twum, Angelina Kissiwaa
• Adam, Ibrahim

The Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) is one such comprehensive plan that aims to boost economic growth and connectivity across Africa, Asia, and Europe. While the effort may be good for boosting exports and foreign direct investment (FDI), some are worried about the toll it may take on the environment. Therefore, we aim to examine the effect of international trade and FDI on the ecological footprint in BRI countries, considering the mediating role of the environmental performance index. The CCEMG estimator was used to examine the impacts of imports, exports, FDI, population growth, urbanization, and the Environmental Performance Index (EPI) on the global ecological footprint. Our findings show that export has a positive relationship with ecological footprint. Similarly, imports and FDI revealed a positive association with the ecological footprint. Finally, environmental performance revealed a negative association with ecological footprint in BRI countries. Our findings support the pollution haven theory by demonstrating the critical importance of environmental regulations in enticing responsible investors. By using the ecological footprint as an all-encompassing measure of environmental effect, this study sheds light on the need to incorporate sustainability within the goals of the BRI. This research emphasizes the importance of adopting well-informed methods to promote sustainable development and mitigate the BRI's adverse environmental impacts.

• Sustainable development;
• Environmental regulation;
• Ecological footprint;

Technological innovations for sustainable transformation towards carbon neutrality

• Published: 27 March 2024

Cite this article

• Xiongfeng Pan 1 ,
• Jia Liu 2 ,
• Chew Tin Lee 3 &
• Xianyou Pan 4  

122 Accesses

Explore all metrics

Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.

Sustainable transformation towards carbon neutrality can be achieved by the development of innovative low-carbon energy technologies. Despite the promulgation and subsequent implementation of various policies, many obstacles and challenges lie ahead in the long transition to the achievement of a sustainable transition towards carbon neutrality, including government behaviour, the market environment, and enterprise capacity. Seeking to overcome such substantial barriers to such development, this special issue focuses on urgent issues, with the theme of “Technological Innovations for Sustainable Transformation Towards Carbon Neutrality”. The call welcomes researchers worldwide to contribute to extensive discussions on this theme and share their original thinking and high-quality research output. Its primary focus is to determine how stakeholders who have developed new technologies and designed green transformation paths can attain their carbon neutrality goals.

The guest editors of this special issue (Prof. Dr. Xiongfeng Pan, Prof. Dr. Jia Liu, Dr. Nader Atawnah, Prof. Dr. Chew Tin Lee, Dr. Muhammad Imran Qureshi, and Dr. Rashid Zaman) have worked diligently to bring together a diverse range of papers that address some of the most pressing low-carbon technological innovation challenges of our time. For example, He et al. (2023) quantitatively studied the implications of the dynamic decision behaviour of stakeholders on the prefabricated construction market; Lu et al. (2023) proposed a three-step method to guide the establishment of an extensible carbon emission factor database for the construction industry; Kayani et al. (2023) investigated the intricate interplay between carbon emissions and foreign direct investment within the context of BRICS; Yu et al. (2023) examined the feedback mechanism of critical peak pricing on coal consumption of power generation side units; Pan and Wang (2023) evaluated the impact of marine ecological compensation policy on marine carbon emission efficiency; and Skrzypczak et al. (2023) explored the development of sustainable fertilizers from waste materials of a biogas plant and a brewery. This special issue presents the latest research and developments in low-carbon technology and deepens our understanding of how to promote and accelerate the development of low-carbon technologies and sustainable transformation.

We, the guest editors, would like to thank the Editor-in-Chief of the ESPR journal, the editorial assistant, and all the supporting staff for giving us this opportunity. We would also like to extend our sincere thanks to all the contributors and reviewers who have made this special issue possible. We hope that the papers in this special issue will inspire further research and innovation in this important field.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Dalian University of Technology, Liaoning, People’s Republic of China

Xiongfeng Pan

University of Portsmouth, Portsmouth, Hampshire, UK

Universiti Teknologi Malaysia, Johor Bahru, Johor, Malaysia

Chew Tin Lee

Shanghai University of Electric Power, Shanghai, People’s Republic of China

Xianyou Pan

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Xiongfeng Pan .

Additional information

Responsible Editor: Philippe Garrigues

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Pan, X., Liu, J., Lee, C.T. et al. Technological innovations for sustainable transformation towards carbon neutrality. Environ Sci Pollut Res (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-024-32401-2

Download citation

Published : 27 March 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-024-32401-2

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research