“No doubt businesses will welcome the government's latest proposals that align the sectoral scope of the UK CBAM more closely with that of the EU's,” Kotsonis said. “At the same time, in the absence of perfect alignment between the two systems, including as regards the question of how the CBAM ‘levy’ is calculated and paid, it would not be possible to avoid completely trade friction between the two trade partners.”
“Ultimately, the introduction of a UK CBAM, one year after the full introduction of the EU CBAM, would nonetheless have the benefit in due course of mitigating the risk of products that are subject to the EU CBAM finding their way into the UK market instead, and giving rise to concerns about unfair competition with domestic producers,” he said.
According to Kotsonis, there are mixed views globally about the introduction of CBAM schemes, with some critics and opponents believing that they serve as anti-competitive protectionist measures – and that the UK government could find itself having to defend the compliance of the UK CBAM regime within the context of World Trade Organization (WTO) rules and international trade treaties.
“Questions over the compliance of CBAM with WTO rules have not subsided, so like the EU, the UK should be prepared to defend the measure not only in a WTO context but also within the context of bilateral trade negotiations with important trading partners such as India which views CBAM as a protectionist measure that is likely to put its own domestic producers at a disadvantage,” Kotsonis said.