POLICY & REGULATION · 8 min read
The EU Asked India and Sri Lanka for the Same Climate Promise. Only One of Them Can Lose Its Tariffs Over It
Both Article 16.6 of the EU-India Free Trade Agreement and the EU’s new GSP regulation stipulate that the Paris Agreement must be implemented. In India’s case, if it fails to meet the requirements, the remedy is a confidential consultation; if Sri Lanka fails to do so, the remedy is the preference itself. The EU prepared a template with real teeth in 2022 and applied it to New Zealand; it did not offer it to India.
By the ESGNexus Editorial Team · September 2026 · Estimated reading time: 8 minutes
KEY TAKEAWAYS
|
This year the European Union has issued two documents which include the same instruction. One is Article 16.6 of the free trade agreement reached with India on 27 January; the other is the regulation which will administer Sri Lanka’s GSP+ preferences from 1 January 2027. Both documents require implementation of the Paris Agreement; the difference arises when a country falls short, and that difference comes before every Sri Lankan exporter competing with an Indian one.
In August, the news reports about the EU-India agreement presented it as a tariff issue: they mentioned that Indian products would have duty-free access, that Sri Lankan garment manufacturers were concerned about the rules of origin relating to Indian fabric, and that the Export Development Board had arranged to meet the Commission’s own consultants to assess the damage. All of these things are true. Yet none of them relates to compliance, and compliance drives annual costs, not a one-off expense.
The Same Sentence, in Two Documents
The Trade and Sustainable Development chapter of the EU-India agreement is Chapter 16. The final sentence of Article 16.6(1) states that “each Party shall implement the UNFCCC and the Paris Agreement”. The verb used is “shall”, which is the most forceful of those in the chapter. In contrast, the article dealing with all the other environmental treaties only requires each Party to “shall strive to fulfil its obligations, as per national circumstances”.
The provision concerned is contained in Regulation (EU) 2026/1395. Starting on 1 January 2027, the Paris Agreement will replace the Kyoto Protocol among the 32 conventions on which GSP+ status is based. On 27 August, ESGNexus indicated the requirements that this change imposes on Sri Lanka; briefly, the country’s own climate commitment will form part of the file that the Commission looks at before it decides to renew a preference amounting to about EUR 1.5 billion per year. GSP+ is based on a binding obligation stated in Article 9 of the regulation “to pursue and ensure the effective implementation” of the conventions, together with a programme of action, monitoring missions and the authority to withdraw.
So far, symmetrical. India promises to implement Paris; Sri Lanka promises to implement Paris. The asymmetry is in what each promise is attached to.
What Happens to India If It Does Not
The Commission’s own chapter-by-chapter summary of the agreement answers one line: commitments on trade and sustainable development are “legally binding and enforceable through a dedicated consultation mechanism”. The word doing the work is “consultation”.
Item 16 of the list in Article 17.2(2) of the dispute settlement chapter is the final entry when referred to by name. It is placed next to the sections covering small business, transparency, good regulatory practice, and sustainable food systems—the parts of the agreement that no one anticipated would be the subject of litigation. Rules relating to sanitary standards, technical barriers, intellectual property, and market access are sent to a three-member panel whose reports are binding on the Parties and whose findings can be enforced by suspending concessions.
In Chapter 16, the articles are 16.16 to 16.19. If a party thinks that the other is not fulfilling its climate obligations, it must write a letter. The other party then has 50 days to reply in writing and 90 days to meet in the Committee on Trade and Sustainable Development. If that does not resolve the issue, the Joint Committee is called into session. If that also fails, the ministers then have talks. The chapter ends there and includes no panel of experts, no arbitration, no compensation and no suspension of any kind. The positions taken by each side are confidential under the treaty, and an outcome is made public only ‘through a jointly agreed report’, which happens only if India agrees.
There is one more sentence worth looking at. According to Article 16.16(3), if a complaint is about compliance with a multilateral environmental agreement, the party responding may request that it be dealt with “through the consultative or other procedures under that multilateral environmental agreement”, and the complaining party “shall accordingly seek to address the matter” in that way. A complaint under the Paris Agreement can be removed entirely from the trade agreement and sent back to the UNFCCC, whose own compliance mechanism is designed to be facilitative.
| Step | Chapter 16: Paris Agreement and the rest of TSD | Covered provisions: market access, SPS, TBT, IP |
| Who can start it | Either Party, by written request to the other’s contact point (Art 16.16) | Either Party, by written request identifying the measure and legal basis (Art 17.5) |
| First deadlines | Written reply within 50 days; consultations in the TSD Committee within 90 days | Reply within 10 days; consultations within 30 days, deemed concluded at 45 |
| If talks fail | Joint Committee, then Minister-level representatives (Arts 16.17 and 16.18). The chapter ends there. | Three-member panel; interim report within 150 days of establishment; final report 45 days later (Arts 17.7, 17.13, 17.14) |
| Is there a finding | No. An outcome is published only “through a jointly agreed report” (Art 16.19) | Yes. Panel reports are “binding on the Parties” (Art 17.25) |
| Consequence of non-compliance | None in the text | Compensation, or suspension of concessions or other obligations (Art 17.18) |
| Escape route | The responding Party may send an environmental-treaty matter to that treaty’s own procedures (Art 16.16(3)) | Choice of forum with the WTO; once chosen, exclusive (Art 17.26) |
Source: EU-India Free Trade Agreement, Chapter 16 (Trade and Sustainable Development) and Chapter 17 (Dispute Settlement), texts published by the European Commission after the conclusion of negotiations on 27 January 2026 and subject to legal revision; read in full by ESGNexus on 7 September 2026 on a third-party host carrying the Commission’s disclaimer — policy.trade.ec.europa.eu; febi.co.in
The Exit the Agreement Opens
There is also another level, even though neither Colombo nor Delhi has mentioned it. India is not excluded from the EU’s preference system; it is in fact a standard beneficiary of the GSP, belonging to the lower tier of that scheme just as Sri Lanka does, but in the upper tier.
That matters because changes will take effect on 1 January 2027. Previously, a standard GSP country could lose its preferences only as a result of serious and systematic violations of human rights and labour conventions. The new regulation broadens this criterion, the Commission saying that it “extends the negative conditionality to environmental and climate agreements”. Its own example is a standard GSP beneficiary which “may lose its preferences if there are serious and systematic violations of the principles of the 32 GSP-relevant conventions”. The Paris Agreement is one of those 32. In theory, from 2027, India’s GSP preferences will include a climate condition with a withdrawal mechanism.
The FTA then comes into effect. In its Q&A on the new arrangement, the Commission uses India as an example: “India will continue to enjoy the standard GSP preference for two additional years after the FTA comes into application, based on its ratification.” After that period, India will no longer be entitled to GSP. Its access to the EU market will depend entirely on the agreement, and the agreement’s climate clause will serve as the consultation ladder.
Taken together, the two documents achieve something the summaries do not state. The FTA does not just provide India with more favourable conditions than Sri Lanka; it removes India from the only EU trade instrument in which a failure of the Paris Agreement could have resulted in a tariff, and places it in one where that cannot happen.
| India, under the FTA once it applies | Sri Lanka, under GSP+ from 2027 | |
| Where the obligation sits | Article 16.6(1): each Party “shall implement the UNFCCC and the Paris Agreement” | One of 32 conventions in Regulation (EU) 2026/1395; Article 9 undertaking “to pursue and ensure the effective implementation” |
| Who checks | The other Party, if it chooses to request consultations; the TSD Committee; civil society through the agreement’s advisory mechanisms | The Commission and the External Action Service, through monitoring missions (last in Sri Lanka 28 April to 7 May 2025) and periodic country reports |
| What must be filed | Information on ratifications, on request (Art 16.5(3)); nothing else | A reapplication by the end of 2028 with a forward-looking plan of action across all 32 conventions |
| Worst case in the text | A jointly agreed report, if both sides agree to publish one | Withdrawal of preferences; from 2027, an urgent withdrawal procedure for grave violations |
| Trade behind the promise | EU tariffs eliminated on over 90 percent of tariff lines under the FTA; no climate condition attaches to them | About EUR 1.5 billion of EUR 2.7 billion of EU imports in 2024 entered under GSP+ |
Source: EU-India FTA, Chapters 16 and 17, as above; European Commission, “Questions & Answers on the new EU Generalised Scheme of Preferences” — policy.trade.ec.europa.eu; European Commission, “MEMO: EU-India Free Trade Agreement: Chapter-by-Chapter Summary” — policy.trade.ec.europa.eu; Regulation (EU) 2026/1395, Article 9, as read for ESGNexus Article #34 — eur-lex. europa. EU GSP Hub, Sri Lanka country page, updated 18 July 2026 — gsphub.eu
The EU Had a Model With Teeth. It Did Not Use It.
The EU does not lack the necessary capability in this area. On 22 June 2022, the Commission reviewed how it addresses sustainability in trade agreements and set out a sixth priority: ‘strengthening enforcement by means of trade sanctions as a last resort’. The first agreement based on that review was with New Zealand, signed in July 2023 and coming into force on 1 May 2024; according to the Commission’s own website, it respects ‘the Paris Climate Agreement and core labour rights, enforceable through trade sanctions as a last resort’. The Commission names New Zealand, Chile and Kenya as the countries with which it has reached agreements containing the most advanced sustainable development commitments. At the same time, India is not included, and the following explains why.
Those who read the Indian text first commented in February. Writing for Dialogue Earth, Shalinee Kumari said the 2022 approach had not been used in connection with the India agreement and that the sustainability chapter is not covered by its main dispute settlement mechanism. Aparna Roy from the Observer Research Foundation’s Centre for New Economic Diplomacy gave a one-line description of the design choice.
| environmental provisions are often positioned as normative or aspirational
— Aparna Roy, Observer Research Foundation, Centre for New Economic Diplomacy, to Dialogue Earth, 10 February 2026 |
A reasonable argument can be made in support of the choice. Since India is a developing country, the provision in Article 16.6 itself refers to “common but differentiated responsibilities”; and the Commission’s summary states that the chapter’s commitments are “legally binding”. This means that there is a treaty obligation. The issue under consideration here, however, is what kind of consequence the binding nature entails. For India, the answer is a conversation; for Sri Lanka, it is the preference.
What Colombo Saw, and What It Did Not
At the meeting held by the EDB with the Commission’s consultants, Paul Baker and Talal Rafi, on 24 and 25 August, the discussion was centred on tariffs and origin. The Joint Apparel Association Forum brought up the issue of cumulation concerning Indian fabric. The EDB stated that it would look into “appropriate cumulation arrangements with India”. The Commission lists textiles as one of the Indian sectors to benefit from the agreement, and local reports anticipate that many Indian products will be able to enter duty-free from the day the agreement comes into effect. These are the questions that the consultants should address in the study they will submit to the Commission.
Baker made a single observation that refers to the broader issue without explicitly mentioning it: he stated that tariff advantages would not remove the significance of sustainability, environmental performance, traceability, and regulatory compliance in the EU market. This applies to both countries insofar as buyers’ requirements are concerned. It applies to only one of them in so far as the law is concerned. For a Sri Lankan exporter, the tariff position depends on a state-level compliance file that includes a commitment to a climate treaty; for an Indian exporter, on the other hand, it does not once the FTA is in effect. The compliance costs are asymmetric and advantage the country that competes on price.
The figure which the EDB should request the consultants to model in conjunction with the tariff differential is the annual cost of maintaining GSP+ eligibility, the action plan, the monitoring cycle, and the reporting under the 32 conventions, all calculated on a per euro of preferential exports basis, in comparison with a competitor who has no such obligations.
What Is Not Known
The agreement is not in effect, and the article does not suppose that it will come into effect in its present form. The Commission releases the texts solely for information and states that they “may be subject to further amendments, including as a result of the legal revision process”, will only become final upon signing and will only be binding after each party has finished its internal procedures. As of 7 September 2026, no date has yet been set for signing, for the European Parliament’s approval, or for entry into force, and ESGNexus is not issuing one.
There are two smaller gaps; the chapter texts quoted here were obtained from a third-party host since the Commission’s own document library does not provide them to automated readers; the copies include the Commission’s disclaimer exactly as it appears and correspond to the published chapter list. Furthermore, the agreement includes an Annex 14-A on carbon border adjustment measures, which this article does not address. This is stated so that the reader may check.
The Commission has not explained how it will evaluate Paris’s implementation of GSP+. It would be wrong to assume the worst; it would likewise be wrong to think the assessment will be as lenient as India’s consultation ladder, since the instrument that regulates it permits withdrawal.
Related on ESGNexus: “The Paris Agreement Just Became a Tariff Condition for Sri Lankan Exporters” — esgnexus.lk/2026/08/27/gsp-plus-paris-agreement-sri-lanka-exporters/ · “Sri Lanka Is Not Underusing GSP+. Apparel Is” — esgnexus.lk/2026/09/07/sri-lanka-gsp-plus-utilisation-rate-apparel-income-graduation/
What to Do Now
1. When it comes to your own books, you should separate the two types of exposure. You can determine the tariff exposure from competition in India on a line-by-line basis using your EU tariff codes. The conditionality exposure is the portion of your sales to the EU that falls within the scope of GSP+; your REX registration and proof of origin serve as the actual evidence. The two exposures operate independently, and only one disappears if you stop claiming the preference.
2. Put the compliance cost on the same page as the tariff gap. The consultants’ study will quantify the tariff differential. Ask the EDB, through your industry body, to add the annual cost of GSP+ eligibility per euro of preferential exports. This figure makes the asymmetry visible to Brussels.
3. Approach the action plan as if you are going to have to provide evidence for it. When you reapply in 2027, you must submit a forward-looking plan covering all 32 conventions, including the Paris Agreement. This is evidence at the company level of emissions and climate measures that transforms a state undertaking into a defensible file; if you can’t provide your own, someone else’s will have to be used instead.
4. Instead of paying attention to the headlines, look at the ratification calendar. The two-year period allowed under the GSP agreement begins when it comes into effect; the two important dates are the signature and the approval of the European Parliament, neither of which has occurred so far.
5. Do not interpret ‘legally binding’ as meaning ‘enforceable’. In the Commission’s summary, both terms are used in connection with Chapter 16. In the text, they refer to a consultation. When the same terms appear in the GSP regulation, however, they refer to a withdrawable preference. Adjust your assessment to reflect this difference.
ESGNexus will keep record of the dates on which the agreement is signed and consented to, check whether any legal amendment affects Chapters 16 or 17, note the Commission’s initial statement regarding how the implementation of the Paris agreement will be evaluated in the reapplications under GSP+, and verify that the consultants’ study is delivered to the Commission with the conditionality cost included—our company’s disclosure profiles currently assess Sri Lankan exporters as to whether they can provide evidence of their emissions. From 2027, this evidence will form part of the tariff file.
Sources & Further Reading
European Commission, “EU-India: Text of the agreements” — Chapter 16 (Trade and Sustainable Development) and Chapter 17 (Dispute Settlement), published after the conclusion of negotiations on 27 January 2026, subject to legal revision — policy.trade.ec.europa.eu; chapter PDFs read on febi.co.in
European Commission, “MEMO: EU-India Free Trade Agreement: Chapter-by-Chapter Summary”, 2026 — policy.trade.ec.europa.eu
European Commission, “EU-India agreements”, accessed 7 September 2026 — policy.trade.ec.europa.eu
European Commission, “Questions & Answers on the new EU Generalised Scheme of Preferences”, accessed 7 September 2026 — policy.trade.ec.europa.eu
European Commission, “Sustainable development in EU trade agreements”, including the Trade and Sustainable Development review of 22 June 2022 — policy.trade.ec.europa.eu
European Commission, “EU-New Zealand agreement”, accessed 7 September 2026 — policy.trade.ec.europa.eu
Regulation (EU) 2026/1395 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 June 2026 on applying a generalised scheme of tariff preferences, OJ L, 22.6.2026, Article 9 — eur-lex.europa.eu
EU GSP Hub, “Monitoring Missions and Priorities in Sri Lanka”, updated 18 July 2026 — gsphub.eu
Shalinee Kumari, “Climate enforcement weak in India-EU ‘mother of all deals’, experts say”, Dialogue Earth, republished by Eco-Business, 10 February 2026 — eco-business.com
“EU-India FTA raises competitive stakes for Sri Lanka exports”, Daily FT, 25 August 2026 — ft.lk
“EDB Discusses Impact of EU-India FTA on Sri Lanka with EU-Appointed Consultants”, Lanka Business Online, 24 August 2026 — lankabusinessonline.com
ESGNexus, “The Paris Agreement Just Became a Tariff Condition for Sri Lankan Exporters”, 27 August 2026 — esgnexus.lk
| About ESGNexus
ESGNexus is Sri Lanka’s independent platform for ESG, CSR, and sustainability intelligence. We track company-level ESG performance, regulatory developments, and sustainability data across Sri Lanka’s listed companies, large unlisted corporates, and state-owned enterprises. All editorial content is independently produced. Sponsored content is clearly labelled. |
Data disclaimer: Information in this article is sourced from publicly available documents. ESGNexus does not independently verify company disclosures. Errors and omissions excepted.