Fair game of good intentions or unjust green imperialism? Contestation of the EU’s trade-related climate policies at the WTO

As major policy priorities for the EU, the Green Deal and Fit for 55 package include several policy initiatives with a strong external dimension to complement internal efforts towards a green transformation. The recently adopted regulations on deforestation-free products (EUDR) and the carbon border adjustment mechanism (CBAM), through which the EU attempts to promote climate objectives globally by leveraging its position as a major trade power, are among the measures that have elicited strong reactions from third countries, especially those whose exports to the EU stand to be affected. While some voice support for the Green Deal’s objectives, accusations of green imperialism and thinly disguised protectionism are levelled, too. Which actors voice which positions, how do they justify them, and what underlies support or opposition to the initiatives? The paper seeks to systematically map the discourse around these two high-profile EU policies in order to identify patterns of contestation of Green Deal measures at the international level. The WTO remains the main multilateral institution providing third countries with a dedicated forum to voice their positions on trade-related EU policies, including the EUDR and CBAM. Oral interventions taken from meeting minutes and written questions by 95 countries at four relevant WTO committees, including in connection with the EU’s 2020 and 2023 Trade Policy Reviews, form the data basis of the analysis. The paper maps speaking countries’ positions, categorizes the different frames and lines of arguments they employ, identifies patterns of coalitions among them and links positions to various country characteristics, including development status, capacity to comply, own climate ambition, and trade exposure to the measures. Based on the findings, the paper concludes by highlighting potential paths forward for the EU to address partners’ concerns and avoid tensions and undesired consequences resulting from these external parts of its Green Deal agenda.