Attendance is by invitation only.

Abstract
Migration is a global phenomenon. It touches all corners of the globe, and is quickly rising on the political and policy radar screens of developing and developed countries alike. It challenges our leaders, and it riles many of our citizens. And migration pressures and emotions are not about to fade away. On the contrary, the forces of globalization and climate change, ensures that the issue of human mobility will continue to be a prominent reality of our times, and demand an effective strategy.
Yet, to date, our responses remain largely national and even then, most nations do not have a comprehensive domestic migration policy or program. This presents the international community with a formidable policy gap; a vacuum that demands a response — a global response. And there is no easy or simple fix.
However, because time is not on our side, I believe that we need to immediately think about how the international community can and should respond, and then impress upon our leaders the need for them to act with appropriate urgency, and to do so collectively.

In this spirit, and in cooperation with the International Catholic Migration Commission (ICMC), based in Geneva, last year I had the privilege of launching and leading an initiative entitled, ‘Conversations, on the Global Governance of Migration’.

In a modest but committed way, our aim was to facilitate an informal, international dialogue among many different migration actors in an effort to explore and better understand the different elements — both process and policy‐related — that would need to be incorporated in any effort to build a framework of global cooperation and collaboration on migration policy.

This article outlines the rationale and need for such an initiative; some key questions; our initial findings; and the future mileposts of this ‘journey’.

Global Migration: In Need of a Global Response

Introduction

“The more things change, the more they stay the same.”

This old and popular French proverb captures well how our world does migration policy today.
Our world has undergone historic change. It has become an interconnected global village, aided and abetted by a technological revolution. And the prolific movement and migration of peoples has become a definite sign of the times.
Ours is also a world where, increasingly “going it alone”, is fast becoming the exception. The old way of doing business. Today, most issues that cross national borders tend to galvanize an international response and strategy; burdens and opportunities are shared by a host of governments and institutions. Matters of international trade, labor, health, human rights, security, intellectual property, climate, for example, are all managed by some form of global governance.
However, despite it being a global phenomenon, migration is the exception to the rule. In fact, for migration policy, “going it alone” seems to be the golden rule. Where national responses continue to trump globally shared ones, and where many nations still do not even have a comprehensive domestic program to deal with migration issues.
Yet, there have been numerous reports and calls over the years urging us to alter, or at least complement, our course. The Willy Brandt Commission in 1980; in 1993 the Commission on Global Governance; the launch of the New International Regime for Orderly Movement of People in 1997; the Berne Initiative in 2001; the Commission on Human Security in 2001; the Social Dimension of Globalization in 2004, and the most recent, of which I had the pleasure of being a Commissioner, was the Global Commission on International Migration in 2005 — all these initiatives made a convincing case for a more cooperative and collaborative global approach to the management of international migration.
However, these reports have all faced the same regrettable fate — they have all been disregarded and left to languish on our book shelves.

Globalization Marches On
If a single or series of commissioned reports were not going to prove convincing, then one would have thought that the historic forces that have shaped our modern times would have compelled us to amend our ways and habits;

• An ever shrinking world.
• A process of unrelenting globalization, that has brought unprecedented change and movement of goods, services, capital, and people to all corners of our planet, at unprecedented speeds.
• An increasingly integrated international economic market place, which places an ever higher premium on labor mobility.
• A world community where migrants now arrive from, travel to, or transit through, every single nation — big and small, rich and poor. Where indeed, migration now touches all lands and all peoples.
• Where man-made crises and tragedies increase and aggravate this human movement — both forced and voluntary — within and across national borders.
• And, where Mother Nature also does her unfortunate best to ensure that different peoples are forced to be on the move in search of a more sustainable land and home.

These are the times we live in. A world ripe with great opportunities, yet one mixed with great turbulence, as well. And migration is not about to fade away. On the contrary, the forces of globalization and climate change ensure that global migration will surely intensify; generating increased emotional responses from citizens, and demanding greater attention from our political leaders.
Moreover, in tackling international problems, our leaders must recognize that they can neither talk about the forces of international trade and investment, nor the challenges of world hunger, disease and terrorism, nor the dangers posed by climate change, nor indeed, about global migration and development—and then proceed to deal with them in an isolated fashion.
The imperative to act in more cooperative, interrelated, and coherent terms has become painfully evident. Indeed, the global response to the current global financial and economic crisis—the establishment of the G‐20, and its close engagement with such multilateral bodies as the WTO, World Bank, and the IMF—perhaps best typifies the paradigm shift that needs to take place in political governance.

Yet, on migration policy, we persevere with largely national strategies. But, are these really strategies? Do they adequately address the increasing levels and changing patterns of international migration or, do they now act more like straight-jackets? Do these strategies expand our options with which to address the needs of human mobility on a truly global level, or do they narrow our policy toolbox? Personally, the answers are rather obvious.

While national governments may still find comfort in these straightjackets for reasons of politics and sovereignty, we actually need to openly assess the reality on the ground as it is, and change mindsets and approaches accordingly.

Simply put, establishing an international framework for migration policy-making is not principally about governments ceding or losing authority. The reality is that under an accelerating era of globalization, employers, smugglers, migrant networks, agents, and individual migrants themselves, have already take things into their own hands, irrespective of national government policies on admission. While governments may have won a number of battles against unauthorized migration, what about the larger, ongoing ‘war’ for better control of who enters, leaves, transits, and remains in their territories? For instance, how did 12 million undocumented individuals, enter the US? And why does this movement continue almost unabated, despite the current conservative measures and thinking being applied to immigration policy?

In other words, an improved migration management internationally — one that shares both the burdens and the fruits — is really about countries and governments reclaiming sovereignty and control, and exercising it collectively — to the advantage of both States and migrants alike. I believe this to be a central ‘hidden’ truth, which requires candid and thoughtful reflection. Its ultimate acceptance has the potential to be a ‘game-changer’, when it comes to the discourse of how to better manage migration among the family of nations.

In addition, improving and establishing new governance measures is not the challenges of just some governments, or the well-to-do nations. To be successful, the approach must be an inclusive one. All nations must be involved because the new reality is that they are all touched, in one way or another, by migration. They therefore all have a vested interest in developing a better, and more coherent and holistic policy response.

To paraphrase Hillary Clinton, it will take a village — a global village.
Having said this, I do not underestimate for one moment, the formidable task that this represents. I never have, whether as Canadian Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, or as Ambassador to the UN and WTO in Geneva, or as a Commissioner on the UN Global Commission on International Migration. To be sure, we need to think and act prudently. However, we should at least find the courage to raise the right questions; questions that we know need asking.
For example;

• In the face of migration’s globality, are national responses sustainable?
• How can we shift policy gears, so as to better meet the needs of today?
• How and where can governments and multilateral agencies enhance their collaboration and cooperation?
• What are the essential elements with which to construct an internationally integrated framework?
• And in this framework, how and where can we retain national flexibilities?

In other words, how can countries help one another to find mutually reinforcing international measures, with which to more effectively address their respective migration pressures locally?

‘Conversations’
These were some of the very questions that we, at International Catholic Migration Commission (ICMC), started with. Indeed, they were the ‘seeds’ that harvested the Conversations initiative.
We wanted to make a modest but committed contribution, by facilitating a process of open and constructive discussion, with an extensive array of senior migration actors, about ways in which we could create better governance, as a response to the global phenomenon of migration. The hope was to help stimulate a deeper public discourse, facilitate the development of a number of relevant benchmarks and options, and eventually encourage decision makers to take up its cause with appropriate urgency.

Conversations was launched in late 2009. As a first phase, it was Geneva-based and consisted of two partnered Roundtables; one-on-one meetings with several key Heads of Agencies (IOM, UNHCR, ILO, UNITAR, UNDP) most involved with the migration dossier; discussions with UN Ambassadors; and input from a variety of individual stakeholders.

Discussions were informal, followed Chatham House Rules, and were largely driven by three concerns:

i) Evaluating the current level of migration governance, and how these efforts could be improved and deepened.

ii) Entertaining new and realistic ideas and proposals which would serve to create a more globally unified response to migration challenges?

iii) And, determining what kind of follow-up action and initiatives would be necessary for advancing this process?

Connecting the Dots

Our Report, ‘Connecting the Dots’, is a summary of the participants’ responses in this first phase, and the discussions that their thoughts animated.

Participants engaged openly and enthusiastically, and we remain most grateful to all of them for their lively, candid, and creative views and assessments. They provided us with a rich menu of issues, observations, and additional questions, which deserve further and thoughtful consideration.

We tried to capture all of the salient contributions and weave them into a coherent story line, including the divergent strands, so as to accurately capture the full flavor of the discourse. You may down load a copy of the report from the ICMC website, at: www.icmc.net

At the risk of not doing justice to the full narrative of the Report, let me draw out some of the highlights and themes of what participants advocated during a very stimulating set of conversations;
Regarding the Broader Context:
1. Participants felt that migration was very much a reflection of our times, and thanks in part to the process of globalization, the movement of people within and across borders, will continue to increase.
2. Nations can no longer be divided into strictly “sending” and “receiving” countries. Today, migrants are leaving from, arriving to and transiting through, all developed and developing countries. In that sense, we’re all in the same boat.
3. As an issue, international migration will only gain in political and policy importance.
4. Yet, despite migration’s global reach, its governance remains almost entirely national, thus creating a significant gap and vacuum.
5. Participants felt that global challenges demand global solutions. And for many of them, it was not a question of whether a discussion of global governance of migration goes forward, but rather when and how.
6. At the same time, discussants did not underestimate the formidable task that this represents for our international community. Trying to mobilize, develop and agree upon a global undertaking is never an easy task, regardless of the issue involved. Practising and succeeding at multilateralism, in an increasingly multi-polar world, is not a simple undertaking. Witness, for example, the 9 year struggle of the WTO’s ongoing Doha Trade Round, or the recent Climate Change Summit in Copenhagen.
7. The objective of Conversations (as well as for the participants) was not to necessarily propose a “super” agency, notwithstanding that such an option might well be considered by States one day. Rather, the focus was on perceptions of the value of global governance itself, and any actions or commitments that seemed practical to pursue in the short to medium term, whose effect would improve the management of global migration.

In Taking Stock of Current Governance Structures:
8. Participants agreed that better approaches were needed to organizing contemporary migration.
9. Timing was seen as an important factor. Given the existing and potentially new challenges on the horizon, it was felt that governments need to move with appropriate urgency. Participants felt that we do not have the luxury of inaction.
10. There was also an immediate attention to the words, ‘global governance, and a concern that the term could be potentially viewed as a “loaded” or “intimidating” term by some governments and/or agencies. Further reflection on a more neutral expression would be helpful and welcome.
11. It was also thought that a good part of this “fear” is the assumption that this would immediately involve or, will inevitably lead, to the creation of a new, supranational agency.
12. The other part of the “fear” equation, of course, is the reluctance on the part of most governments to cede sovereignty over migration matters. However, participants asked directly: what if governments took the time to calculate their net benefits, if migration were to be subjected to global cooperation and collaboration, just as is done with so many other global issues?
13. The principal underlying assumption was that a shared and coordinated international approach would be of benefit for all parties concerned: for the ability of States to better manage migration, for improving the confidence of their citizens, and for migrants themselves.
14. A more effective global approach would also embrace a “bottom-up” approach, as well as extending outwards, both national and regional processes, and not just new tools.
15. Participants identified five pillars which currently intersect to provide what one participant labelled as “soft” governance: i) national policies and programmes; ii) bilateral, regional, and global dialogues; iii) supranational structures and cooperation (e.g. the EU); iv) multilateral agencies; and v) international legal frameworks. But to date, participants believed that the sum of the parts had not resulted in coherent global governance.
16. It was thought that a set of broad migration principles could assist and guide the development of international governance measures. In this regard, the Report of the Global Commission on International Migration, had articulated a set of six such principles that people thought were still relevant and helpful.
17. Participants made repeated references to “sharpening” and “better utilizing” existing tools, which spoke to the need for ensuring that agency mandates are well aligned.
18. It was felt that the migration ‘issue’ could be a more central component of the UN agenda, including in the work plan and priorities of the UN Secretary General.
19. A number of key contradictions which form part of the migration discourse were identified, furthering the need for a clear vision of, and leadership on, migration policy.
20. With respect to some of the specific, existing processes:
Ø The Global Migration Group was viewed as a disappointing underachiever, and participants offered a number of recommendations for reform and improvement.

Ø The Global Forum on Migration and Development was regarded more positively, notwithstanding a number of limitations. There was a strong disposition that the next Forum in Mexico, later this year, needs to shift from a purely “talking” mode into a more “active” mode.

Ø The substantial increase in regional consultative processes in recent years was noted, and despite the differences in focus and outcomes, it was generally believed that there was considerable scope for closer collaboration and cooperation.

In Looking to the future with a different lens:
21. A variety of ideas and observations were expressed.
Ø On conceptualising governance, these included:

§ developing a shared vision for migration, and mobilizing the political will and leadership to move on migration internationally

§ an improved institutional framework is required, complete with normative foundations and coherent regional processes

§ finding common drivers/platforms that would assist in broadening migration governance

§ articulating and documenting the specific advantages that would benefit countries from adopting an international framework to migration policy-making

§ establishing a constructive public advocacy campaign that would help focus on promoting the importance of global governance for migration, with political leaders, policy makers, targeted media and the public. In this regard, it was also suggested that the migration-serving community could be strengthened and better organized

Ø On building governance, recommendations included:

§ building on bilateral and regional agreements and processes

§ establishing coherent and comprehensive migration policies at the national level, including better integrating migration issues into countries’ foreign and developmental policies, and supporting capacity building efforts towards this end

§ creation of a formal and permanent international Forum that would regularly discuss migration policy, and take the appropriate collective actions

§ the holding of a regular, international meeting of Ministers responsible for migration, thereby providing the space and opportunity for them to engage with colleagues from around the globe on legislation, regulations, practises, and experiences relating to migration policy.

§ creating more opportunities for Parliamentarians to discuss migration related issues, in an effort to formulate better strategies for engaging their respective citizens

§ encouraging national leaders to be more engaged on migration policy, and providing the leadership and direction for their ministers, as well as for their respective delegations in multilateral agencies that deal with migration

Ø With respect to intergovernmental and other migration actors, recommendations included:

§ improved governance must incorporate a much better capacity and commitment to engage in long term planning, as well as nurture improved, inclusive partnerships with civil society and the private sector

§ reinforcing the “rapprochement” of better cooperation between the leading migration agencies

§ specific improvements to the functioning of both the GMG and the GFMD, including enhanced collaboration between the two entities

§ a more active and strategic engagement on migration issues by the UN Secretary General, as well as clarifying the mandate of his Special Representative on Migration

§ efforts to ensure that the next UN High Level Dialogue, scheduled for 2013, is an interactive, results-oriented dialogue, and not just a series of independent statements. In this regard, the early appointment of a Special Chairperson, that would report directly to the UN SG and oversee the preparations and execution of the meeting, was viewed as central to achieving such an outcome.

In Assessing Where ‘We’ go From Here:
21. The participants heartily welcomed and encouraged ICMC to continue its work on the governance process. They urged that efforts be made to reach out to additional stakeholders, with the objective of enhancing the public discourse and sustaining some much-needed advocacy and momentum on this front.
22. Accordingly, a good number of concrete proposals building on the first phase were suggested, and these are noted in the report.
23. As a follow up, based on this input from participants and in a continued spirit of partnership, ICMC plans to immediately move into a second phase which will consist of the following six priorities:
i) circulate this report among all the participants and through them, to their respective networks. Beyond this, we will also share the report with other relevant migration stakeholders, in an effort to further broaden the public discourse on the issue of governance.
ii) hold additional roundtables with a variety of different migration actors in capitals like New York, Washington, and Brussels, as well as in developing country capitals.
iii) continue with meetings of UN Ambassadors in Geneva, and explore the feasibility of doing the same in New York. Our next Geneva session is for the coming week.
iv) organize an initial meeting/retreat for a critical mass of Ministers responsible for migration, from both developing and developed nations.
v) work with and support the Mexican Chair of the next GFMD.
vi) secure donor support to deepen and broaden these and subsequent activities for engagement.


Moving Forward

Since publishing ‘Connecting the Dots’, additional roundtables and government meetings have been held in Brussels, New York, and Washington, including an engaging session with UN Ambassadors in New York. These new outreaches have enriched the process. They served to consolidate key viewpoints, offered new variations of these viewpoints and finally, provided entirely new thoughts and suggestions.
In continuing this ‘journey’, our context is the timetable facing political and policy makers as they prepare themselves for the 2013 UN High Level Dialogue on Migration, in New York, as well as contemplating what follows (if anything) the final (of six) Global Forum on Migration and Development, to be held in Morocco, in 2012. Accordingly, we would like to offer them the benefit of our ‘Conversations’; to provide an agenda of thoughtful and realistic findings and recommendations that could serve as a relevant and representative reference for their deliberations.
In this regard, we are committed to a number of additional mileposts. These include:
Ø Roundtable meeting(s), and related bilateral meetings with government officials in a developing country capital and region
Ø A Business Forum (in the planning stages)
Ø Engaging Parliamentarians ( planned for October this year, with the Inter Parliamentary Union, in Geneva)
Ø A Dedicated Forum with Civil Society
Ø Continuing the Ambassadorial informal meetings in Geneva and New York.
Ø Participating in the November GFMD, in Mexico, and hopefully at its final two successors.
Ø Drafting and circulating the 2nd report of Conversations, at the time of the Mexican GFMD.
Ø Organizing a Ministerial Retreat.
Ø Hosting a concluding Conference, and publishing a Consolidated Report of Findings and Recommendations.

As we undertake this work, we need to recognize and accept that the very phenomenon of migration is both fascinating and challenging. It has always been so, and likely always will.

Migrants are dreamers and entrepreneurs. They seek a different and better life, and they are fully prepared to take considerable risks in achieving their quest. In many cases, first generation migrants unselfishly sacrifice their own quality of life, in an effort to secure improved prospects for their children, and grandchildren.

Migrants also come from all corners of the globe, and they often seek and seize opportunities in very different lands. In doing so, they conquer past adversities and reinvent themselves. At the same time, they also help to renew societies. The diversity of peoples, experiences, and ideas creates invaluable creative energies and capital, which contribute to the nation building processes of their new, adopted countries.

However, there is also a darker, more dispiriting side to the migration reality. Despite passionate desires, many people do not get the opportunity to migrate. Some that do find it a disappointing and underwhelming experience. Others use the migration process for untoward purposes, while all too many profit unscrupulously from the human desperation that migration aspirations generate.

To be sure, migration remains largely an opportunity — for both migrants and nations. But as a deeply emotional reality, it is also packs fears, perceptions, and insecurities that can create anxieties for people of all backgrounds, from all lands.

For all of these reasons and contradictions, I remain absolutely convinced — grounded by the participants who have animated our ‘Conversations’ process— that establishing an international regime of coordinated actions would inevitably help nations to maximize the opportunities that migration offers, while better addressing the challenges that accompany it. That by working together, we will avoid the shortcomings of going-it-alone.

We need to honestly think things through. In that assessment, let us retain and reinforce what is working well, while being candid and courageous where realities and pressures demand that we rethink and rebuild.

Recently, I saw an advertisement in the Financial Times that caught my attention. The large caption blared out: “A risk tamed, is a reward captured!” In a way, the ad captures the essence of marshaling and building an international approach to migration policy.

Indeed, it’s about managing and taming risks, while capturing and reaping the rewards.

But in order to accomplish this task, it will require nations to share and cooperate with one another, for the greater public good. It will require leaders and policy-makers to think and act globally, in an effort to win and consolidate locally.

In the end, it will require providing the global vision and leadership that global migration demands.

…………………………………………

v Ambassador Sergio Marchi is Special Advisor to the Secretary General of the International Catholic Migration Commission, in Geneva. He is also a Senior Fellow with the International Centre for Trade and Sustainable Development, and teaches in the International Relations Department at Webster University, both headquartered in Geneva. He formerly served as Canadian Minister of Citizenship and Immigration; Canadian Ambassador to the UN and WTO in Geneva, and as Commissioner on the UN Global Commission on International Migration.

欧盟2020战略提出，贸易政策必须回应环境和气候变化问题，但同时要避免转向贸易保护主义。这固然是一个很好的目标，但是欧盟将怎样达到这个目标则是困难的，其政策路径往往是模棱两可甚至是自相矛盾的。

如何把握欧盟下一步的气候变化和贸易政策，对于中国政府和企业的决策者来说是一个十分重要的议题。

欧盟与气候有关的贸易政策的基本背景

欧盟一直有意在减少温室气体、减缓气候变化方面担当世界领导者的角色。但是，面临两个方面的主要挑战。

从外部看，不少人批评欧盟说得很多，减排效果却很有限。比如，一些评论家认为，欧洲率先设立的碳排放权交易系统(ETS)，虽然提出了减排的指标，但是因为首批碳放权都是免费发放的，实际上并没有促进企业进行技术革新、反而推迟了走低碳道路的时间。另外，从国际经济法的角度看，也有专家认为欧盟免费发放的碳减排指标，其实质是对企业的补贴，不符合WTO有关补贴和反补贴的规则。

从欧盟内部看，不少人认为欧盟企业为达到更严格的减排目标而付出了额外的成本，从而导致在国际市场上的竞争力削弱和‘碳泄漏’问题。关于竞争力的担忧，是指欧盟企业担心欧盟以外的厂家因为可以无节制的排放而担负较低的成本或者根本没有成本，从而造成了一个不公平的贸易环境，致使欧盟厂家处于不利的竞争地位。碳泄漏的问题，指由于欧盟更严格的排放标准增加了欧洲企业的生产和运营成本，从而导致某些欧洲企业将投资转移到欧洲以外的地方，所以说碳并没有减排，而只是泄漏到欧洲其外的地方了。

当前，国际气候变化谈判的前景不乐观，在短期内达成一个有法律约束力的全球减排协议可能性不大，在全球范围形成一个相对稳定的二氧化碳（排放权）价格更是遥遥无期。再加上欧洲经济自从去年陷入低谷，迟迟不能走出危机，产业界和公民社会对竞争力和碳泄露的担忧进一步加剧。

未来欧盟政策的重点

在这样的背景下，欧盟贸易总司和欧洲经济与社会委员会等机构正积极酝酿下一步的政策取向。具体有这样几个重点。

首先，在雄心勃勃的碳减排目标下，设置一些缺口。

欧盟仍然计划设定较高的减排目标，比如到2050年在1990年基础上削减80%，而中期的2020-2030期间的目标是削减25-40%。但是欧盟内部对于这个减排目标将对欧洲中长期的环境、就业和经济发展有何影响没有把握。

在改革碳排放权交易系统方面，欧盟也计划从2013年起逐步从免费发放排放权转变到排放权的拍卖，目标是到2020年拍卖的碳排放权至少占到70%，最终到2025年所有的排放权将进入拍卖。

但是，欧盟的一些专家提出，对于那些面临贸易竞争力挑战和‘碳泄漏’风险的行业给予宽限，即从2013年起继续给这些行业免费提供一定数额的排放权。参照欧盟第2003/87/EC号指令第10a（15）条的规定，欧盟经济与社会委员会指出有11个行业，即：淀粉及淀粉制品，糖生产制造，其他非蒸馏的发酵饮料，发酵材料中的酒精生产制造，纸张和纸板的制造，精炼石油产品制造，平板玻璃的制造，中空玻璃制造，陶瓷砖和陶瓷板的制造，铸铁管制造，铅，锌，锡生产。

其次，在支持WTO多哈回合下的环境产品和服务贸易自由化谈判的同时，要开辟新的绿色技术贸易的途径。

IPCC已经建议了一系列的缓解和适应气候变化技术，其中很多技术正在WTO的环境产品和服务项下进行谈判，包括风能和水电涡轮，太阳能锅炉，太阳能电池和设备等。

欧盟认为短期来看，这些技术的进一步自由化对解决气候变化影响甚微，因为很多产品，特别是再生能源产品的关税水平已经很低（发达国家的平均关税2%， 发展中国家平均6%）。相反，投资障碍和非关税壁垒将继续是这些技术向发展中国家扩散的主要障碍，包括繁杂的行政审批程序、要求服务提供商必须在进口国有实体企业、以及对外国企业的活动限制。欧盟希望通过双边和区域性的贸易协议来解决欧盟产品和技术出口中的问题。

第三，对于联合国气候变化公约多边框架下达成有法律约束力的协定的希望降低，想借鉴美国和东亚实行的自下而上的战略。

从第一阶段欧洲碳排放权交易的实际效果来看，欧盟开始意识到不能只把希望寄托在碳市场上。特别是在短期内难以形成一个覆盖全球的碳市场，依靠碳价格来减少排放、实现欧洲经济的低碳转型是不现实的。相反，仅仅依靠碳市场可能使欧洲错失技术创新的时机。

欧盟逐步意识到有必要效法美国和东亚的自下而上的战略，加强对环保技术的创新研发进行投资，包括财政和税收上的激励措施，以及鼓励各个地方和区域性政府机构通过政府公共采购来支持清洁技术的发展。

第四，重视行业性方案，特别是高排放贸易量大的行业、航空运输也和水处理技术行业。

由于多边政府间谈判迟迟没有进展，欧盟更加重视行业性的方案也解决气候变化和贸易的问题。一是达成并执行一个国际行业性协议。关于这个议题，国际上已经讨论了十多年了。虽然一直没有形成共识，但是，欧盟认为对于高能耗的行业（比如上文中已经提到的11个贸易强度大的有碳泄漏风险的行业），跨国的行业性协议仍是一个可能的途径。

运输行业是下一阶段欧盟实施更严格减排管理的重要行业。欧盟支持联合国气候变化框架公约提出的航空业削减10%和海洋运输削减20%的目标。从2012年起，航空运输业将被纳入欧洲碳排放权交易系统。根据RDC航空咨询公司的估算，这将意味着给欧洲航空公司每年增加11亿欧元的成本。欧洲碳排放权交易系统宣布从2012年起将涵盖所有飞入欧盟的航空公司，这个有争议的决定将给欧洲本土以外的航空公司带来很大的影响。

另一个越来越得到重视的是水行业。一是因为气候变化对水资源分配的影响，造成或者恶化很多地方水资源的稀缺，二是因为城市化和工业化导致生活和工业废水的污染问题加剧。欧盟希望促进水行业的技术转移和合作，包括饮用水、海水淡化技术、废弃水的再利用等。

上述贸易量大、高排放的11个行业的中国企业需要警惕欧盟的最终政策走向，如果欧盟对本国企业提供免费碳排放权，同时对进口产品征收边境调节税或者要求购买碳排放指标的话，这有可能构成对进口产品的歧视，不符合其在WTO中的义务。

对于进入欧洲航空市场的中国航空企业，一方面需要积极准备向欧洲碳排放交易系统提交所需的以往年度经营额和能源消耗数据等资料，同时也要密切跟踪美国航空业协会起诉欧洲碳排放权系统一案的进展。美国航空协会认为欧盟单方面把非欧盟航空企业纳入欧洲排放权交易系统违反了芝加哥公约禁止治外法权的原则以及WTO有关进口税费的规则。

至于水技术设备和服务行业，对中国来说是一个极好的机遇，有助于解决中国急迫面临的饮用水和废弃水管理的问题。欧洲国家在水管理方面具有很强的优势，经验丰富，技术手段完备。政府应当积极支持中国企业和欧盟之间的合作，促进技术转让和贸易，鼓励共同投资，开放水处理的服务市场。

第五，欧盟密切关注消费者和厂家的责任分担问题，积极推进碳会计（carbon accounting）。

消费者和厂家都应当对碳排放承担责任，比如制造商承担制造过程中的碳排放，而消费者对于流通运输和商店的碳排放担负责任。不仅如此，消费者的购物选择可以反过来影响厂商的行为。如果消费者选择那些生产过程低碳、环保的产品，就会鼓励厂家的技术更新。

欧盟日益重视消费者一端的作用，主要出于两个方面的原因。一是因为短期内难以形成有效的国际性规则来管制和约束生产厂家。全球化条件下单个产品的价值链往往跨越多个国家，也进一步加大了在国别层面进行碳排放监管的难度。二是因为欧洲市场已经开始出现了一些自愿性的低碳、环保标签，但是市场上出现的这些倡议比较混乱，处理得不好可能不利于消费者的参与。

当前的重点是细化“碳会计”的方法论。欧盟建议碳会计核算应当包括产品整个生命周期，从设计、投产到流通，同时增加碳会计制度的稳定性和连续性，并且在欧盟层面设立一个合适的机构框架对这些标准加以管理和评估。

这将对国际贸易产生巨大的冲击。主要是因为，传统的贸易措施关注的是最终产品的质量和环保表现，比如这个冰箱是否节能，而新的碳排放会计要考察这个冰箱的整个生命周期即制造过程的节能程度如何、其原料来源和废弃物排放管理如何、该产品在运输流通中的碳排放以及产品寿命结束后分解或者回收再利用中的环境表现。这是复杂的，但是如果处理得好的确是有利于地球环境和生活环境的长远之举。

结论

贸易政策可以、也应当能够部分地解决环境和气候变化问题，这是一个很好的设想。对于实践这样的结合，无疑这不是一个理想的世界，欧盟的尝试也必定是艰难的。

在内外两方面受到批评的情况下，欧盟将一方面维持其雄心勃勃的减排目标，同时推行一些过渡性的措施。某些措施可能与一些既定的国际规则相矛盾，比如2012年以后继续给高排放、贸易量大的行业提供免费的排放权配额，可能存在与WTO反补贴条款的冲突。单方面地将外国航空企业纳入欧洲排放交易系统，有可能造成实质上的额外税费而违背非国民待遇原则。再比如，根据产品生产或流通过程中的碳排放而增加碳会计的标签，超出了传统贸易政策中只针对最终产品的这个范畴。

我们对欧盟的政策尝试予以关注，期待在开放贸易和减缓气候变化方面能够双赢，也期待各国能够出于自身的利益和全球的利益，以宽容和合作的心态加入到这个政策创新实验中来。欧盟应当在政策的酝酿和出台过程中，积极建立与各国、特别是发展中国家之间的对话和协商。尽管在短期内，欧盟的一些措施可能会诱发在WTO框架下的贸易争端。无论是在双边还是多边环境下的争端，我们希望争端的解决是澄清各自贸易义务的机会，也是寻找促进贸易开放和可持续发展双赢的创造性方案的机会。欧洲和中国注定在规则的解读和创新方面扮演越来越重要的角色。

成帅华博士是ICTSD战略分析和中国部主任。