As home to a significant portion of the world`s population, wildlife, flora and marine species, the parties to the TPP share a strong commitment to environmental protection and conservation, including working together to manage environmental challenges such as pollution, illegal wildlife trade , illegal logging, illegal fishing and the protection of the marine environment. The 12 parties agree to effectively enforce their environmental legislation; and not to weaken environmental legislation to encourage trade or investment. They also agree to meet their obligations under the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) and to take control and cooperation measures to prevent the illegal trade in wildlife. In addition, the parties agree to promote sustainable forest management and to protect and preserve the wildlife they have classified as endangered on their territory, including measures to preserve the ecological integrity of particularly protected natural areas, such as wetlands. In an effort to protect their common oceans, the contracting parties agree on sustainable fisheries management, the conservation of important marine species, including sharks, to combat illegal fishing, and a ban on some of the most damaging fishing subsidies that affect overfished fish stocks and support illegal, unreported or unregulated fishing. They also agree to increase transparency in these grant programs and to do everything in their power not to introduce new subsidies that contribute to overfishing or overcapacity. Fredrik Erixon and Matthias Bauer of the European Centre for International Political Economy (ECIPE) write that Tufts` analysis is so flawed „that their results should not be considered reliable or realistic.“  You write that the tufts model „is, on the whole, a demand-driven model, which makes no effort to measure the effects of trade on supply, which are the effects that turn out to be the main positive effects of trade liberalization. What is also problematic is that the model is not designed to assess the impact of trade agreements on trade – in fact, the model is deeply unsuited to such an exercise. No commercial economist, regardless of the school of thought he or she possesses, has ever used this model to make trade estimates. The reason is simple: if a model cannot predict the impact of trade liberalization on trade flows and the profile of trade, it is useless.  They add: „In Capaldo`s analysis, structural changes and the emergence of new industries play no role.
Capaldo implicitly assumes that an economy does not react with its work and capital and adapts to new circumstances. New competition only creates new unemployment. In addition, the impact of barrier reduction on international trade on product and process innovation is overlooked. Finally, Capaldo does not take into account the impact of competition on production costs and prices to the end consumer.  Robert Z. Lawrence, a Harvard economist, argues that the model used by Tufts researchers „is simply not appropriate for credibly predicting the effects of TPP“ and argues that the model used by Petri and Plummer is superior.  Lawrence argues that the model used by Tufts researchers „does not have the granularity that allows it to assess variables such as exports, imports, foreign direct investment and changes in the industrial structure.