While many other issues have proved contentious in the efforts to reach a new global climate deal over the past couple years of negotiation under the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), agriculture has been able to unite interests across many lines.

In particular, numerous parties have promoted and successfully advanced specific language on agriculture in the negotiations of the Ad Hoc Working Group on Long Term Cooperation Action (AWG-LCA), under the topic of sectoral approaches to mitigation. The current version of the text, which is included in a “non paper” that will continue to be negotiated in 2010, recognises the importance of food security to address climate change challenges, as well as the relationship between agriculture and food security and the clear link between adaptation and mitigation in the context of agriculture. It also includes a request for the Subsidiary Body for Scientific and Technological Advice (SBSTA) to establish a programme of work on agriculture. While Copenhagen did not succeed in finalising the negotiations of the AWG-LCA, countries decided to carry negotiations forward towards an eventual agreement in Mexico.

Agriculture and land use change

While agriculture is not specifically referenced in the Kyoto Protocol, it is indirectly addressed in the negotiations on land use, land use change and forestry (LULUCF) of the Ad Hoc Working Group on the Kyoto Protocol (AWG KP). Under the Kyoto Protocol, Annex I countries must report and quantify emissions and removals by sinks in the LULUCF sector in order to achieve their targets. Possible LULUCF activities discussed included voluntary action to curb greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from agricultural soils.

In Copenhagen, discussions did not progress on including agricultural activities beyond cropland management and grazing land management. In addition, countries did not decide on whether to take voluntary or mandatory approaches to land-based emission reductions. However, a programme of work looking at more comprehensive accounting - including land-based accounting - might be put in place in the future. Finally, discussions on the scope of the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) did not make progress, and the CDM will remain limited to afforestation and reforestation activities.

Agricultural mitigation action under the Copenhagen Accord

The Copenhagen Accord, supported by most but not all member countries, did not mention the agriculture sector or food security. It requested developed countries to submit mitigation targets and developing countries to submit actions as well as details on how they would reach their goals. Among countries that responded, twelve submissions from developing countries (out of thirty-two) specifically mentioned the agricultural sector amng their mitigation actions.

The developing country mitigation actions submitted to the UNFCCC Secretariat reflect different national capacities, conditions and perspectives. They include some of the key mitigation technologies and practices currently commercially available in the agricultural sector. These technologies and practices consist of: 1) improved crop and grazing land management to increase soil carbon storage; 2) restoration of cultivated peaty soils and degraded lands; 2) improved rice cultivation techniques and livestock and manure management to reduce methane emissions; 3) improved nitrogen fertilizer application techniques to reduce nitrous oxide emissions; 4) dedicated energy crops to replace fossil fuel use; and 5) improved energy efficiency.

Examples of country commitments

Brazil, Republic of Congo, Cote d’Ivoire, Ethiopia, Indonesia, Jordan, Madagascar, Mongolia, Morocco, Papua New Guinea, Sierra Leone, and Republic of Macedonia made submissions within the agricultural sector.

Brazil provides estimated quantitative, voluntary emission reduction targets. This country proposes actions related to pastoral and crop land management, as well as livestock management. More specifically, it will seek to restore grazing land, integrate crop-livestock systems and use no-till farming techniques and biological nitrogen-fixing species. Brazil will also increase its use of biofuels.

Indonesia is finalising a National Action Plan to materialise 26 to 41 percent CO2 equivalent emission reduction in the country. To achieve this 2020 emission reduction cut, the country proposes actions in different sectors, including agriculture. Among other activities, they will implement sustainable peat land management activities and develop carbon sequestration projects. They also consider the development of alternative and renewable energy sources.

Ethiopia submitted voluntary Nationally Appropriate Mitigation Actions (NAMAs) hoping these actions will be supported financially and technologically as promised in the Copenhagen Accord. With regards to the agricultural sector, this country proposes to increase carbon soil sequestration by developing compost in rural local communities’ agricultural land and implementing agro-forestry practices and systems. In addition the country will seek to produce ethanol and biodiesel for road transport and household use.

Jordan proposes to grow perennial forages in the Badia Region, use best management practices in irrigated farming fertilisation applications and use methane emitted from livestock and chicken farming production and slaughter houses.

More than 80 percent of the GDP of Mongolia’s agriculture sector is derived from the livestock sub-sector. As a NAMA, the country proposes to limit the increase of the total number of livestock by increasing the productivity of each type of animal, especially cattle.

Morocco suggested improving the productivity of its agricultural land.

Papua New Guinea expressed its willingness to decrease GHG emissions at least 50 percent before 2030 while becoming carbon neutral before 2050. It proposes to decrease agricultural GHG emissions by 15-27 MtCO2/year but does not specify activities.

Sierra Leone proposes to introduce conservation farming and to promote the use of other sustainable agricultural practices such as agro-forestry.

The Republic of Macedonia will enable favourable pre-conditions for GHG emission reduction through several policy actions including the implementation of the EU CAP legislation, the completion of institutional and legal reforms in irrigation sector, the development of a system for application of Good Agricultural Practices and enabling financial support for motivating the farmers to use mitigation technologies.  The GHG mitigation technologies to be developed in the agricultural sector include better crop residues and animal waste management.

According to the FAO, the proportion of the submissions from the Non-Annex I Parties in response to the Copenhagen Accord that include agriculture may be an indicator that agriculture is likely to become an important component of the NAMAs in developing countries.

Next steps for agriculture

Notably, outside the UNFCCC process, twenty-one countries recently signed a ministerial declaration creating the Global Research Alliance on Agricultural Greenhouse Gases. Participants of this alliance will share their knowledge and research efforts; identify gaps in the whole portfolio of research; and leverage new resources for collaborative projects. This group will first gather on 9-10 April in New Zealand to discuss governance issues and research focus. This research alliance should facilitate a common understanding on challenges related to agriculture mitigation.

What is likely to be the next step for agriculture in the climate negotiations? The negotiations on the AWG LCA and AWG KP will resume as mandated by the Parties in Copenhagen and decisions on the scope and content of a SBSTA work programme on agriculture are still to be taken at the next UNFCCC meetings. This work programme could facilitate and inform a future climate agreement on scientific and technological methodologies for agricultural mitigation.

Marie Chamay Peyramayou is Manager of the Global Platform on Climate Change, Trade and Sustainable Energy at ICTSD

There is a growing interest in creating added value in rural areas of Andean countries. Such added value can be obtained through the direct use of the primary products of biodiversity; their use as inputs for products which require processing (e.g., foods and drinks, cosmetics, and pharmaceutical products); the extraction of genes through biotechnology; or their utilisation in situ through ecotourism. In all such cases the products could be accompanied by traditional knowledge, which increases their value.

Creating value in rural areas

Poverty in rural areas in Andean countries is rapidly expanding and traditional agriculture, in the way it is currently practiced, is not generating adequate employment and income to reverse this trend. If this expansion is allowed to continue, it is more likely to aggravate the problem of poverty in the future, than help to solve it.

Andean countries have a dual-agricultural sector: commercial and peasant agriculture. Commercial agriculture depends heavily on renewed genetic material, including hybrid seeds, high levels of agrochemical inputs, and mechanisation. For some crops, relatively large farms are dominant. In peasant agriculture, there is a heavy dependence on local seeds derived from the domestication of biodiversity and traditional cultural practices. However, while nutritional value is high, quality can be sub-optimal and market linkages are not well developed. Adding value and better marketing practices in this sector would be a significant contribution.

Rural areas in the region are rich in non-domesticated biodiversity which are often exploited on a small-scale by native communities for their food and medicinal needs. However, the extraction of these same resources by those interested in patenting such properties without proper recognition of communal rights has motivated political decisions geared towards the protection of biodiversity in extremis.

Justifying distinctive signs

The need for competitive participation in markets has pushed firms and countries to differentiate their products in the marketplace, from the most general to the very specific distinctive means. Thus, we find country marks as general as “Made in Germany,” and also we find brands created by companies of different sizes from transnational corporations (e.g., Coca Cola, Nestle), to midsize and small national companies. In a similar way, GIs have emerged as a way of differentiating products from specific regions.

The main arguments for using distinctive signs are grounded in three rationales. The first is to protect the value and identification of local differentiated products; the second is to encourage alliances among producers and processors to standardise their production and processing practices; and third to facilitate access to markets where consumers have shown a preference for such distinct products.

Identity options

The most common options for successfully creating an identity for products and territories include geographic indications, denomination of origin (DO), and collective brands. GIs, in a general sense, are a sign placed on products that have a clearly established origin and poses qualities and reputation derived from its place of origin. GIs are not limited to agricultural products as they could cover handicrafts and other products.

GIs have been developed for primary and processed products of biodiversity. The weight of traditional knowledge in GIs is more significant in processed products and it is usually associated with ancestral traditions. In most cases there is a link between the singularity of a given product and biodiversity. However, the ultimate weight of biodiversity varies depending on the relative importance of processing - traditional or modern technologies - and local knowledge.

DOs are a special type of GI for products that own a specific quality derived in a unique way from its genetic characteristics, the ecology of the site, or through industrial processing. For example, while a GI may refer to Café de Colombia, a DO may refer to coffee from a particular region of Colombia. Europeans are the most active users of DOs and they tend to be extremely precise when specifying products and locations. In fact, in Spain alone, 574 DOs were registered between 2001 and 2005.

Brands or marks also help to differentiate products as they provide the holder with exclusive rights for its use. In the case of ‘collective brands’, the holder is an association that groups private firms or individual producers authorised to use the brand. In several cases, a local brand by itself is identified with a local territory as it is, for example, in the case of Pisco Biondi from the small valley of Moquegua, Peru. In other cases, the mark allows the differentiation of specific origins. For example, this is the case with Café Britt in Costa Rica, which in its label recognises various origins, including Tarrazú, Tres Rios, and Los Santos.

Certifications, such as Fair Trade and ISO, are also ways to differentiate products. In such cases, there is a recognition of quality, commitment with the environment, and recognition of specific groups in local societies (women or small producers). However, certifications are not instruments for protection against violation of GIs or intellectual property rights (IPRs).

Making the most of GIs

In order to benefit from GIs and DOs, consumers must first recognise the special characteristics of a given product. Without this, effectively positioning the product on the market can be difficult.

Applicants are required to follow the rules and regulations to obtain the certification and to commit to applying those criteria for the life of the project. In order to obtain a GI and a DO an applicant must first undertake a study of the qualifying conditions and market prospects, present a registration requirement, and then fulfil all the required steps until the right to use the instrument is obtained. If a group of producers and processors are united in an alliance, they must be accredited and commit themselves to implementing an investment program, employing a management strategy that guarantees product quality under defined standards, and achieving market access.

It must be remembered that once a GI or DO is established, all members of credited organisations must strictly follow the defined rules of the national legislation, as well as their specific norms.

The Andean experience in GIs and DOs

The GI and DO potential for Andean countries - from the dry lands of the Pacific coast to the highlands and the Amazonian jungle - is substantial. Hundreds of products - in both domesticated and natural environments - have been noted as possible candidates for these instruments. However, in the case of Peru, of this long list some 23 products have been recognised and only six have been registered; four others are currently in the process of being registered.

Institutional capacity to deal with the opportunities for GIs and DOs in Andean countries is limited and there is a lack of a strategy at the country level to promote and support the achievement of GIs. Within the institutes responsible for IPRs and related matters in Andean countries, the offices responsible for GIs are minimal and in the agricultural ministries there is a complete absence of such units. At the local level, in the territories with potential and among producers of specific products, the capacity is in most cases non-existent.

The European experience shows that compliance with the legislation and the capacity of local organisations regarding GIs is essential if it is to be an effective means of protection against imitation and fraud. Recognition of these matters at the WTO continues to be an issue of debate.

The Andean experience: lessons learned

The following lessons have been observed from the analysis of the four products looked at I the study. In some products, such as Café de Colombia, production takes place in a broad geographical area, while in others, such as Maiz Blanco del Cuzco, production can be far more localised. Also, defining the origin of a given product may be complicated in some cases when goods are produced in more than one country, as in the case of quinoa, which is produced in Peru and Bolivia - and even in the US. Thus, efforts must be made to ensure DOs are designed as specifically as possible regarding territories.

However, when looking at genetic factors for the same examples, it becomes clear that cases can be different. For example, Maiz Blanco del Cuzco is very specific, but quinoa has several varieties. Genetic characteristics must be given a high recognition as an element for DOs.

Processing is perhaps the most important element of establishing a DO, particularly when it has been derived from ancestral traditions; this is however not always the case for DOs in the Andean countries. Café de Colombia, for example, is processed under industrial rules to assure quality, Cacao Arriba from Ecuador and quinoa from Peru and Bolivia are processed under traditional methods, but Maiz Blanco del Cuzco is not processed at all. One would expect that DOs that include transformation processes incorporate traditional cultures.

GIs and biodiversity

Biodiversity as such, particularly in situ,  must be protected by governments and society to ensure the preservation of the ecosystem; to facilitate living conditions of native populations while they learn to use biodiversity to generate market products; and to allow scientific work that leads towards future products of industry and biotechnology. Means for protection of biodiversity in situ include declaration and surveillance of natural reserves, supporting bio prospective research, and empowerment of local populations.

Regarding the protection of biodiversity products in specific territories, IPRs and GIs have a limited scope. In the first case, such protection is given through patents. However, while patents should be shared with local communities to make them effective in the protection of specific products of biodiversity, it is well known that this is not occurring.

However the protective capacity of GIs does not go beyond safeguarding the geographical origin and the qualities attached to it. This instrument has very limited use in protecting the traditional knowledge that frequently is associated with the products of biodiversity.

Trademarks identified with territorial and product specific qualities could be an option to provide some protection. They also have the advantage of being more achievable than GIs. However, at least in the case of Peru, the 23 products identified with potential to gain GIs, are currently being used by 43 companies to produce several hundred products. Some of the original products are being used by as many as 13 companies without any non-financial recognition to local producers. Changing this reality would undoubtedly be a major undertaking.

Main conclusions

The rural development of Andean countries can be improved through the creation of value added, and GIs are a possible means towards that end where products have particularities and a preferential position in markets. Distinctive signs are created for products that derive solely from biodiversity and also for products that gain value added through processing - particularly when that process is rooted in ancestral practices. These distinctive signs offer a possible means to protect unique products and territories from imitation and fraud with respect to their origin, but they provide little protection to traditional knowledge attached to the products.

The feasibility of establishing a GI, local trademarks, and other distinctive sign framework depends fundamentally on market preferences for the product, continuous commitment to quality, compliance with rules and regulations, and commitment from private investors to allow business growth and sustainability. The local capacity of producer organisations and municipal governments in the sites where GIs have potential is also a significant factor when looking at the feasibility of GI implementation.

Despite the proliferation of references to hundreds of products with the potential of acquiring GIs, the number of products with actual qualifications is smaller - and the number of products that have actually achieved GI status is extremely limited. And while there are expectations that IPRs and GIs will provide protection against copy, imitation, and fraud, their effectiveness is limited by the nature of the products and conditions in local territories and the weakness of regulations and institutional capacity for enforcement. Thus, there is a need for various instruments to protect local products of biodiversity - primary and processed - to allow the benefits to be retained by local communities and committed producers and processors.

Recommendations

Capacity within responsible national institutions must be improved to allow for effective enforcement of GI legislation and to promote their establishment in cases with proven potential. Access to information on the benefits, opportunities, necessary commitments, and investment and managerial needs for GIs to lead into successful business must be improved to ensure interested members of society can effectively engage in the process. Technical assistance to local producer organisations with potential to achieve GIs for local primary or processed products must also be improved when compelling opportunities have been identified.

Carlos Pomareda is President of Servicios Internacionales para el Desarrollo Empresarial (SIDE S.A.) and Julio Paz is Director of the Centro de Estudios Estratégicos del Instituto Peruano de Acción Empresarial (IPAE).

[1] Andean countries consist of Bolivia, Colombia, Ecuador, and Peru.

The US Department of Justice (DOJ) held off on enforcing the amendments until the spring of 2009, but promised that soon after it would prosecute some high-profile cases to make its point. True to its word, the DOJ followed through in November 2009 with a raid on Nashville-based Gibson Guitars, the world-renowned manufacturers of an array of stringed instruments. No arrests were made, but federal agents from the US Fish and Wildlife Service seized boxes full of documents, wood, guitars, and computer files from Gibson’s corporate headquarters as well as from a nearby factory. Madagascan rosewood, the wood targeted in the investigation, is very popular in guitar manufacturing; it is also very expensive, usually selling for US$5,000 per cubic metre, twice the price of mahogany.

At time of writing, the Gibson investigation was the DOJ’s only high-profile enforcement case under the expanded Lacey Act, but observers say that similar raids are sure to follow.

The new amendments to the Lacey Act define ‘illegal timber’ as wood that has been harvested or transported in violation of a law or regulation of the country in which it was sourced. This includes violations of explicit timber-protection laws - illegally harvesting wood in a national park, for example - but it could also include breaches of administrative regulations, such as violating a curfew designed to combat illegal harvesting to transport timber at night.

Penalties for infringing the new Lacey amendments can be severe: individuals found guilty of importing, exporting, selling or trading illegal timber can face up to five years in prison or a US$250,000 fine - for each separate violation. The responsibilities placed on importers are significant: US-based buyers of foreign wood can be prosecuted even if they had no knowledge that the wood they imported was illegally sourced. The government only has to prove that — “in the exercise of due care” — the importer should have known about violations in the harvesting of the timber. Of course the more an importer did know about the violations, the greater the potential penalties they could face.

To guarantee full protection, companies will have to be very thorough in vetting their imports. Before its headquarters were raided, Gibson Guitars appeared to have solid green credentials: its CEO, Henry Juszkiewicz, sat on the board of the Rainforest Alliance - a strong advocate for the new Lacey amendments (Juskiewicz has since taken a leave of absence from the board) - and most of the wood in its instruments was harvested ‘sustainably’. Most, that is, but not all.

Studies estimate that up to 10 percent of all wood that enters the United States has been harvested illegally. Imports of wood products from places like Russia and Madagascar and are widely considered to be especially high risk. Some observers predict that once the government’s enforcement efforts are in full swing, countries whose wood is likely to be tainted could be effectively blacklisted by US importers.

The ‘Forest Annex’: An alternate approach

The amending of the Lacey Act may be the most dramatic step that the US government has taken to combat illegal logging, but it certainly is not the first. The so-called ‘Forest Annex’ that was written into the free trade agreement (FTA) between the US and Peru has similar aims but takes a very different approach.

Instead of placing the burden on US timber importers, the Forest Annex requires the Peruvian government to enact a number of specific provisions to combat illegal logging. Under one of the mandatory measures, Peru must track the harvesting, transport, processing, and export of tree species that are protected under the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES). Moreover, the Andean country - the world’s biggest exporter of mahogany - is obliged to fully investigate violations of the agreement’s law and regulations.

Some critics have said that because the Forest Annex approach ignores the question of ‘transhipment’ - routing timber through a third country to circumvent the system - it is fundamentally flawed. “Without a broader commitment to excluding illegal timber from all its trading partners, the US runs the risk that illegal Peruvian mahogany will be sent to Mexico or China to become our doors and furniture just the same,” Alexander von Bismarck, Executive Director of the Environmental Investigation Agency, explained in testimony to legislators in October 2007.

The Forest Annex came about as a result of a political deal that was struck between lawmakers and the administration of President George W. Bush in May 2007. Many predicted that the revised Peru deal would become a model for future US trade agreements; so far, though, no new pacts have been negotiated.

Already a positive impact?

But while the Forest Annex demands reforms on the part of the producer country, the amended Lacey Act targets US-based importers, forcing them to take full responsibility for how their timber is handled all the way through to the end of the supply chain. For that reason, the new measures could be a boon to a critical actor in the forestry sector: third-party forest certification bodies.

The Forest Stewardship Council (FSC), a non-governmental organisation founded in 1993, and the Sustainable Forestry Initiative (SFI), run by the American Forest & Paper Association, an industry group, are two of the biggest such independent certifiers. Both schemes, and several others like them, ‘certify’ forest management practices according to a set standards of environmental and social sustainability. All of those certification schemes require the wood to have been harvested legally. The FSC alone has certified about 117 million hectares of forest - an area roughly the size of Colombia - in 82 countries around the world.

While certification has become significantly more popular over the past 15 years, the vast majority of wood traded in the international market has not been vetted by an independent third-party certifier. (The FSC’s 117 million hectares represent only 5 percent of all forests in production around the world.) And there are several reasons for this: The certification process, which is purely voluntary, can be time-consuming and costly, especially for producers in developing countries. Moreover, there is little evidence that consumers are willing to pay a price premium for wood products bearing a ‘certified’ label.

But the revised Lacey Act may be starting to change that. Immediately after the amendments passed, certifiers began touting their services as the best way for companies to protect themselves from the prying eyes of DOJ lawyers. Now, nearly two years later, some certifiers are reporting an increase in demand for the services they provide.

Smartwood - a certification system run by the Rainforest Alliance, an environmental group - claims to have registered “a significant increase in interest in verification services since the Lacey Act was passed,” including requests from Paraguay, Guyana, China and Russia - countries in which it had never worked in the past. WWF’s Global Forest Trade Network has also reported a spike in interest in certification.

“From everybody that I talk to in the world of third party auditing - the folks who actually do the verification audits for certification - by all accounts, there is increased interest” from companies, especially in the chain-of-custody certification, says Andrea Johnson of the Environmental Investigation Agency, a green group that fought hard for the amendments on Capitol Hill. “My sense is that they’re starting to see an uptick…but it hasn’t been a massive surge yet.”

The demand for certification could become stronger, however, as the US government’s enforcement efforts get more intense, Johnson said in an interview. “We talk pretty closely to folks in the [US government] who are implementing here, and the level of interest and investment in enforcement of Lacey is only getting stronger,” Johnson says.

Other countries are taking notice. Australia is expected to announce similar legislation on illegal timber in the coming weeks, while the European Union is on track to pass a set of ‘due diligence’ laws governing the timber trade later this year.  New Zealand and Japan have also signalled interest in pursuing similar strategies.

Taken together, a series of illegal timber bans in several major consumer markets could push the illegal timber trade past a “tipping point,” Johnson says.

“I have no doubt that this is going to lead to more certification on the ground, not just in the chain-of-custody end of things, but in forest management as well.”

Paige McClanahan is Editor of Bridges Weekly Trade News Digest at the International Centre for Trade and Sustainable Development.

The bioenergy sector has become one of the most dynamic in the economy. This has happened for three main reasons. Firstly, the dependence on oil from politically unstable regions and expected future fuel shortages have led to increased interest. Secondly, governments are seeking to limit their carbon dioxide emissions in order to tackle climate change, and biofuels could provide one part of the solution.  Finally, the promise of rural employment as a driver for economic development is attractive to governments.

However, many countries do not themselves hold the technology needed. This challenge can be overcome through the transfer of technology. According to the OECD, technology transfer involves two separate processes: “The transfer of industrial production capacities, and the transfer of capabilities to master, adapt and further develop imported technology.” This article focuses on one example of technology transfer, namely, between Brazil and Angola. These two countries are cooperating to diversify the energy sector and boost agricultural productivity in Angola.

Ethanol production in Angola

Angola, which is located in Sub-Saharan Africa, faces economic challenges because of its 27-year-long civil war, which ended only in 2002. Since then, the economy in Angola has been experiencing growth, and Angola is the second biggest oil exporter in Africa. State expenditure in Angola quadrupled over the years 2002 - 2004. According to the United Nations Development Program (UNDP), the gap between the rich and the poor in Angola has been widening during this same period, however. The production of bioethanol is conceived to help Angola diversify its economy and provide jobs in rural areas.

The technology transfer agreement between Angola and Brazil - which led to the creation of energy company BioCom (Companhia de Bioenergia de Angola, Lda ) - focuses on the production of sugar and ethanol in the region of Cacuso in Angola. BioCom, which a registered Angolan company, was created as a joint venture between Angola’s state oil company Sonangol (20%) Angolan firm Damer (40%), and Brazilian firm f (40%) with a start-up budget of USD258 million. The project is set to be deployed on a total area of 30 thousand hectares in the municipality of Malange in Cacuso. It will be fully operational by 2012, generating an expected 30 million litres of ethanol, 250 tonnes of sugar, and 160 thousand megawatt-hours of electricity annually. In terms of initial financing, the Angolan National Agency for Private Investment (ANIP) helped to raise funds. Most of the initial funding came from the Angolan Foment Bank (BFA) and Bank Espírito Santo (BESA), with the participation of Brazil’s State Development Bank (BNDES).

Transferring the technology

Brazilian expertise in the areas of agricultural practices, genetics and industrial equipment comprise the main elements of the technology transfer. This technology serves to ensure efficient, sustainable, state-of-the-art production. In terms of good practices, the project will focus, among other, on water and waste management (including recycling) and fertilizer use efficiency.

Most of the technology that is being transferred to BioCom is already of public domain, but some private domain technology is also being transferred. In December 2009, 62 BioCom completed employees underwent industrial and agricultural operator training at the agro-industrial unit Eldorado in Mato Grosso do Su in Brazil.

The process of technological adaptation is slow. It might take three to five years, according to the experts involved. In the case of biological systems, such as agricultural production, their natural cycles must be respected. The cycle is one year for sugarcane, which means the results have to be evaluated and modified after three years of work.

Hopes, dreams and reality

The various partners to the technology transfer project, as well as the direct and the indirect beneficiaries, have expressed a number of objectives. These include decreasing dependence on imports, as Angola now imports 100% of its sugar, and enhancing the possibilities of profitable exports of ethanol to European markets. Agnaldo Jaime, Co-ordinator of the Restructuring Commission of ANIP, stressed that, “We want private investment as sponsors of jobs, allowing the reduction of imports and hence the expansion of the Angolan trade abroad.”

The creation of rural industrial jobs, with the ancillary social and economic benefits that entails for rural areas, is indeed an important objective of the project. The project could even enhance rural electrification, as the industrial process - which is powered by bagasse (sugar cane residues) - is set to generate surplus electricity.

BioCom and its partners have identified additional potential environmental benefits, as the production of ethanol could allow Angola to start using ethanol fuel blends in the transport sector (building on the successful experiences with flex-fuel cars in Brazil). Not only would such a switch help reduce local air pollution, but would also bring down carbon dioxide emissions and as such might generate profits under the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) in the future.

Technological development as a “Poverty Fix”?

The ambitious goals of the technology transfer project provoke a number of questions. Which actors will benefit?  What opportunities and drawbacks is the population of Cacuso likely to face? Will the project help address poverty and inequality? What does it mean in terms of food security? As such, the project has its critics, especially as regards the actual benefits rural communities are likely to accrue.

In interviews conducted by the author, a number of socio-economic risks were raised. In terms of jobs, around 500 jobs will be created for both Angolans and Brazilians by the project. However, most of the local population of Cacuso lack the necessary skills, meaning they might not benefit at all. According to BioCom, 31 local people have been employed thus far. In the words of one interviewee, “Those people living in Cacuso- Malange are in need of food. The production of fuel and sugar are not able to help their daily requirements”.

In terms of land, some interviewees feared that the expansion of the large-scale monoculture of sugar cane would cause land pressures on the poor - although BioCom stressed that “water and land are not an issue there. The land was not appropriated [from] any community and sugar cane is not an irrigated plantation, consequently not jeopardizing any small farmer’s production.”

The Angolan non-governmental organisation ADRA (the Association for Rural and Environmental Development) calls for three issues in particular to be addressed. Firstly, the families in the region in which an industry is being developed should be involved in order to effectively evaluate the risks and benefits for the future. This would help mitigate problems and compensate those affected. Secondly, a plan should be carefully developed to maximise the use of local labour, also with a view to future opportunities. Thirdly, companies should focus on their Corporate Social Responsibility, investing in social development while taking environmental responsibility in the region.

Generally, concerns related to institutional and social weaknesses, including the social gap between the rich and the poor in the host country, were raised. Overall, Angola is still struggling with issues of political instability and governance issues. Public participation and debate in policy processes around projects such as the one described in this article are still at a low level, and did not take place in this particular case.

This situation is, however, slowly changing. A recent appeal from representatives of Angolan civil society to their government - entitled “Declaracao Benguela” - calls for the re-evaluation of current policy to ensure that big investments in the country do not lead to eviction of people from their lands. The letter does not oppose investments, but highlights potential problems if business-as-usual continues. The signatories want to avoid negative consequences, such as land pressure on the poor, and ensure that those most in need become party to the benefits, rather than being sidelined by the already rich and powerful. The issues raised in the appeal are worth considering in the bioethanol sector as well.

Concluding remarks

In conclusion, technology transfer has to be carefully designed and executed, especially in countries characterised by weak institutional governance. This should be done in order to ensure benefits to those most in need. Otherwise, the sustainability of the commodity to be produced - in this case ethanol - is in jeopardy. This would not be in the interest of any of the stakeholders involved, ranging from the government to the enterprises to the local communities. My study, currently underway, suggests that some specific arrangements between the companies and local communities should be considered in order to achieve sustainability for all parties involved. Overall, there is a need for a deeper understanding of the dynamics of technology transfer in relation to large scale agricultural projects. Such an understanding could help in the design of relevant policies to support rural activities and livelihoods, enhancing the Human Development Index of the country in question.

Rafael Vaisman, a Brazilian national, is an MSc Candidate at Lund University in Sweden. His research interests include Sustainability, Governance and Policy.

While Copenhagen did not result in the expected outcomes, there are elements in the Copenhagen Accord that provide useful guidance for further work on trade in climate-friendly technologies. ICTSD’s research findings on climate-friendly environmental goods, namely that additional market-creating and supportive measures for developing countries will enhance trade in these goods and meaningfully enhance the benefits from an environmental goods and services (EGS) trade-liberalisation process at the WTO, closely mesh with the Accord’s recommendations. The Accord also has a strong significance for discussions on technology-transfer in climate-friendly goods including those that have been taking place in the context of the WTO EGS negotiations.

ICTSD’s activities on EGS in 2009 focused on advancing the understanding of and negotiations on climate-friendly goods - both in the context of the WTO, UNFCCC, and regional trade (APEC) - and on strengthening the capacity of developing countries in the area of EGS and sustainability, specifically in terms of identifying and articulating their interests.

On the climate front, ICTSD’s research on trade flows, barriers and market drivers for climate-friendly goods in the renewable energy supply and building sectors formed the core of the focus on 2009. A similar study on the transport sector is underway.  These climate-technology mapping studies were part of a pioneering initiative undertaken under ICTSD’s EGS project and also formed the basis of other initiatives undertaken by ICTSD’s programme on intellectual property rights (IPRs) in collaboration with UNEP and the European Patents Office - notably the patent-landscaping exercise for climate-friendly technologies.

Outcomes were presented at informal dialogues in Geneva (in April and September of 2009), at regional and APEC dialogues (where they formed part of the wider trade and climate change agenda) and at a side event at the UNEP Governing Council on diffusion of climate-change friendly technology - “The potential of trade policies in the transition towards a green economy.” They were also presented to stakeholders in conjunction with the Copenhagen Climate Conference in December 2009.

Thus far, ICTSD’s emphasis has been on goods. Identifying the potential of trade in climate-friendly environmental services is imperative for effective and lasting solutions for climate change. ICTSD will now consult with relevant stakeholders to ascertain the most useful areas of research on climate-friendly environmental services. The issues and challenges involved in the design of sound climate policy to enable better diffusion of climate-friendly technologies and trade policy that can accelerate such diffusion requires more sophisticated ongoing research. It also involves reaching out to new stakeholders such as domestic and international regulatory agencies and private-sector stakeholders at various levels of the EGS value chain. Developments in regional negotiating and standard-setting bodies outside WTO and UNFCCC could also have implications for trade in climate-friendly EGS.

Related papers

ICTSD papers relevant to trade in climate-friendly goods and services can be accessed on ICTSD’s web-portal- http://ictsd.org/climate-change/accelerating-trade-and-diffusion-of-climate-friendly-goods-and-services/

For further information, please contact Joachim Monkelbaan. Email: jmonkelbaan@ictsd.ch

30-31 March, New Delhi, India. TRADE AND CLIMATE CHANGE IN EMERGING ECONOMIES: THE COMPETITIVENESS, TECHNOLOGY, AND INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS DIMENSION. Organised by ICTSD and Research and Information Systems (RIS).

20-21 April, Kathmandu, Nepal. DIALOGUE ON TRADE, POVERTY AND CLIMATE CHANGE. Organised by ICTSD, the Indian Institute of Foreign Trade, and SAWTEE.

Other Events

22-26 March, London, UK. 60TH SESSION OF THE IMO’s MARINE ENVIRONMENT PROTECTION COMMITTEE.

23 March, Geneva, Switzerland. WORKSHOP ON EMERGING TRADE MEASURES IN TIMBER MARKETS. Co-organised with the Economic Research and Statistics Division of the WTO Secretariat.

23 March. New York, US. CSD-18 THEMATIC SEMINAR SERIES: SUSTAINABLE CONSUMPTION AND PRODUCTION. Organised by the CSD Secretariat.

24-25 March, Langat Basin, Malaysia. INTERNATIONALSYMPOSIUM: HARMONISING ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS WITH SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL OF RIVER BASINS.

6-11 April, Geneva, Switzerland. 30TH ANNUAL MEETING OF THE INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION FOR IMPACT ASSESSMENT.

15-16 April, Paris, France. WORKSHOP ON ADVANCING THE AQUACULTURE AGENDA: POLICIES TO ENSURE A SUSTAINABLE AQUACULTURE SECTOR.

21-23 April, Seoul, Republic of Korea. BUSINESS FOR ENVIRONMENT GLOBAL SUMMIT (B4E).

3-14 May, New York, US. EIGHTEENTH SESSION OF THE COMMISSION ON SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT (CSD-18).

24-28 May, Guatemala City, Guatemala. 26TH SESSION OF THE LATIN AMERICAN AND CARIBBEAN FORESTRY COMMISSION.

15-17 June, Belfast, UK. SUSTAINABLE OCEAN SUMMIT (SOS).

14-17 July, Quito, Ecuador. INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION IN TRANSBOUNDARY TROPICAL FORESTS. Organised by the International Tropical Timber Organization (ITTO) and the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD).

26 July - 6 August, The Hague, Netherlands. ICAP SUMMER SCHOOL ON EMISSIONS TRADING FOR EMERGING AND DEVELOPING COUNTRIES.

16-20 August, Fortaleza, Brazil. SECOND INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON CLIMATE, SUSTAINABILITY, AND DEVELOPMENT IN SEMI-ARID REGIONS - ICID 2010.

22-25 August, Oldenburg and Bremen, Germany. 11TH BIENNIAL CONFERENCE OF THE INTERNATIONAL SOCIETY OF ECOLOGICAL ECONOMICS: ADVANCING SUSTAINABILITY IN A TIME OF CRISIS.

18-29 October, Nagoya, Japan. CONVENTION ON BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY TENTH CONFERENCE OF THE PARTIES (CBD COP 10).

TRADE FLOWS, BARRIERS AND MARKET DRIVERS IN RENEWABLE ENERGY SUPPLY GOODS: THE NEED TO LEVEL THE PLAYING FIELD. By Veena Jha. ICTSD Programme on Trade and Environment Issue Paper No. 10 (December 2009). http://ictsd.org/downloads/2010/01/veena-jha-paper.pdf

Other Resources

CONFRONTING BIOPIRACY: CHALLENGES, CASES AND INTERNATIONAL DEBATES. By Daniel F. Robinson (February 2010). http://www.earthscan.co.uk/?tabid=101786

COMBATING ILLEGAL FISHING IN THE EU: INTERACTION WITH WTO RULES. By Heike Baumüller (Chatham House) (January 2010). http://www.chathamhouse.org.uk/publications/papers/view/-/id/826.

TRADE AND DEFORESTATION: WHAT HAVE WE FOUND? By Juan Robalino and Luis Diego Herrara. World Trade Organization (February 2010). http://www.wto.org/english/res_e/publications_e/wtr10_robalino_herrera_e.htm

CLIMATE CHANGE, TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER AND INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS.  By Krishna Ravi Srinivas. RIS Discussion Paper series (July 2009). http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1440742

CAPPING CARBON. By David M. Driesen. Environmental Law (January 2010). http://www.lclark.edu/law/law_reviews/environmental_law/.

LEGAL FRAMEWORKS FOR REDD: DESIGN AND IMPLEMENTATION AT THE NATIONAL LEVEL. Edited by John Costenbader. International Union for Conservation of Nature (2009). http://cmsdata.iucn.org/downloads/eplp_77.pdf.

LABELING GENETICALLY MODIFIED FOOD IN INDIA: ECONOMIC CONSEQUENCES IN FOUR MARKETING CHANNELS. IFPRI Discussion Paper by Sangeeta Bansal and Guillaume Gruèreère (January 2010). http://www.ifpri.org/sites/default/files/publications/ifpridp00946.pdf

FOREST WATCH SPECIAL REPORT - UPDATE REPORT ON FLEGT VOLUNTARY PARTNERSHIP AGREEMENTS. By Saskia Ozinga and Iola Leal. EU Forest Watch (FERN) (February 2010). http://fern.org/sites/fern.org/files/VPA%20update.pdf

CONVENTION ON BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY: YEAR IN REVIEW 2009. Convention on Biological Diversity (January 2010).  http://www.cbd.int/doc/reports/cbd-report-2009-en.pdf

TRADE AND ENVIRONMENT REVIEW 2009/2010: PROMOTING POLES OF CLEAN GROWTH TO FOSTER THE TRANSITION TO A MORE SUSTAINABLE ECONOMY. UN Conference on Trade and Development. (February 2010). http://www.unctad.org/Templates/Page.asp?intItemID=5305&lang=1

ARE TRADE AND CLIMATE CHANGE DIRECTLY RELATED? By L. Tamiotti, R. Teh and V. Kulaçoğlu (UNEP and the WTO) (2009). To access the publication, visit:  http://www.wto.org/english/res_e/booksp_e/trade_climate_change_e.pdf

COMPARABILITY OF ANNEX I EMISSION REDUCTION PLEDGES. By Kelly Levin and Rob Bradley (World Resources Institute) (February 2010). http://www.wri.org/publication/comparability-of-annexi-emission-reduction-pledges

THE COPENHAGEN ACCORD: A STEPPING STONE? World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF) (January 2010). http://assets.panda.org/downloads/the_stepping_stone_final_280110.pdf

THE BIOFUELS MARKET: CURRENT SITUATION AND ALTERNATIVE SCENARIOS. United Nations Conference on Trade and Sustainable Development (UNCTAD) (12 July, 2009). http://www.unctad.org/Templates/webflyer.asp?docid=12454&intItemID=3830&lang=1&mode=downloads.

A RENEWABLE WORLD: ENERGY, ECOLOGY, EQUALITY. By Herbert Girardet and Miguel Mendonça (The World Future Council) (September 2009). http://www.worldfuturecouncil.org/a_renewable_world.html.

OCEAN ACIDIFICATION: A HIDDEN RISK FOR SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT. United Nations Department on Economic and Social Affairs (UNDESA) (December 2009). http://www.un.org/esa/dsd/resources/res_pdfs/publications/sdt_cc/cop15_policy_brief_1.pdf

CLIMATE CHANGE AND IMPLICATIONS FOR FISHERIES AND AQUACULTURE. UN Food and Agriculture Organization (UNFAO) (December 2009). http://www.fao.org/fileadmin/user_upload/newsroom/docs/i0994e.pdf

With the momentum triggered by the EU and US support for an Appendix I listing - which would result in an effective trade ban - in the lead-up to the COP, many observers were stunned to see a vote striking down the ban come so early in the two week conference.

Monaco, which spearheaded the campaign, officially tabled its proposal for an immediate listing of bluefin Appendix I on Thursday. Shortly thereafter, the EU tabled a compromise proposal that would have delayed the implementation of a trade ban until May 2011 to conduct scientific testing to confirm whether bluefin tuna stocks are, in fact, at dangerously low levels.

But rather than opening the proposals up to debate, Libya called for an immediate vote. The Monaco proposal was voted down 20 to 68, with 30 abstentions and the EU proposal fell by 43 to 72 with 14 abstentions. CITES proposals require a two-thirds majority to pass.

Momentum stalled early in talks

Shortly before the start of the COP the EU had surprised many observers by announcing its 27 member states had reached a consensus and would vote for a ban at the Doha, Qatar meeting. Because the EU holds more than 50 percent of the total bluefin catch quota and European countries along the Mediterranean play a major role in the industry, a collective position supporting the ban was seen as unlikely by many observers.

The EU decision built on the momentum of an earlier US announcement that it would also push for an Appendix I listing for the fish. Species listed on Appendix I of CITES are considered to be “threatened with extinction,” and are banned from trade among the 175 countries that are CITES members.

Shortly following the US announcement, Japan - the world’s largest importer of bluefin - went on the offensive, warning that it may not comply with CITES if the treaty blocks the country’s access to the fish. Japan had reportedly managed to muster support for its decision in Doha from China and “several Arab countries” in the early days of the meeting.

Those aligning themselves with Japan said the trade ban would be damaging to poor fishing nations and asserted that the proposal is not backed by sound science. Some 80 percent of the global bluefin tuna catch is exported to Japan, where it is sold as a premium dish in restaurants.

In the wake of the vote, it is unclear where alliances were ultimately placed due to a request from Iceland that countries’ votes be kept secret.

Harsh reaction from green groups

With the bluefin tuna issue - the proposal with top billing in Doha - so quickly defeated, reaction by environmental groups appeared to be one of genuine surprise. Once groups such as WWF and Oceana - which had campaigned strongly in the months leading up to COP - had digested the news, their criticism was harsh.

Dave Allison, senior campaign director of Washington-based Oceana called the vote “a clear win by short-term economic interest over the long-term health of the ocean and the rebuilding of Atlantic bluefin tuna populations and fishery.”

Allison also criticised the procedures followed in Doha, calling the secret voting process an “attack on transparency” and arguing that the timing of the vote stifled debate. “Although there were repeated calls from delegates from the EU, US, and Monaco to allow time for parties to meet and arrive at a compromise position, the Libya delegate forced a preemptory vote.” Allison said in a statement.

Sergi Tudela, head of fisheries at WWF Mediterranean concurred, saying “it is scandalous that governments did not even get the chance to engage in meaningful debate about the international trade ban proposal.”

Back to ICCAT

With the defeat of the bluefin proposal at CITES, management for the fishery remains in the hands of the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT). However, conservationists have argued for years that the regulatory body is incapable of adequately managing the industry.

ICCAT has attempted to help make the bluefin fishery more sustainable in recent years - most recently reeling in catch quotas from 22,000 tonnes in 2009 to 13,500 tonnes for 2010 and decreasing the purse seiner fishing season by one month - but critics argue that the organisation has not done enough to combat illegal, unreported, and unregulated (IUU) fishing.

Proponents of the Appendix I CITES listing argued that regulations governing trade would be more effective than attempting to regulate fishing fleets. By ICCAT’s own numbers, more bluefin tuna was exported to Japan alone than the total allowable catch for 2007.

“ICCAT…has repeatedly failed to sustainably manage this fishery,” said WWF’s Tudela. “ICCAT has so far failed miserably in this duty so every
pressure at the highest level must come to bear to ensure it does what it should.”

For its part, Japan says it acknowledges that bluefin tuna stocks are under threat, but it argues that reduced catch limits accompanied by stricter enforcement would be a more sensible way to deal with the problem.

“We will intensify our efforts to control these resources and prevent illegal harvesting of these fish,” Japan’s agriculture minister Hirotaka Akamatsu told reporters Friday. “We believe we have the responsibility to show leadership in control over these resources.”

Environmental groups are now hoping to convince consumers to boycott the fish as an improvised means to help reduce demand. “It is now more important than ever for people to do what the politicians failed to do - stop consuming bluefin tuna,” Tudela said.

Other species under the microscope in Doha

The blufin tuna defeat was the first of two major defeats for conservationists on Tuesday. A US led proposal that would stop international trophy hunting of polar bears was also struck down at the meeting. Polar bear habitat is under threat from climate change, which is rapidly melting sea ice.

“While we are disappointed with the votes today … we are heartened by the support around world to up-list the polar bear and bluefin tuna,” Tom Strickland, assistant secretary of the Interior for Fish and Wildlife and Parks told reporters following Thursday’s vote.

Other proposals waiting for a vote at the CITES COP include the addition of eight shark species to Appendix II - where trade is heavily regulated, but not banned - and measures regulating dozens of coral species.

ICTSD Reporting; “Japanese Fish Dealers Welcome Tuna Ban Rejection,” ABC NEWS, 19 March 2010; “U.N. Rejects Export Ban on Atlantic Bluefin Tuna,” THE NEW YORK TIMES, 18 March 2010; “Conference rejects protection for polar bears,” CHRISTIAN SCIENCE MONITOR, 19 March 2010; “Global conference rejects bans on trade in bluefin tuna, polar bear,” THE WASHINGTON POST, 19 March 2010.

More Bridges Trade BioRes headlines

More ICTSD highlights