Least Developed Countries (LDCs)[2], Small and Vulnerable Economies (SVEs)[3], and Small Islands Developing States (SIDS)[4] are already highly vulnerable to climate change physical impacts. In addition, they may also be hurt by some of the responses to the challenges of climate change taken by other countries and the international community.

These countries face significant levels of poverty and increased levels of climate-related threats such as droughts, floods, hurricanes, superimposed upon existing vulnerabilities. While these countries represent only a small portion of world trade, they are amongst the most open and trade-dependent in the world. Their key trade sectors such as agriculture, fisheries and tourism will be major impact-takers under climate change, yet many of these countries have already struggled, and achieved only a limited success in diversifying their economies. All these factors make LDCs, SVEs and SIDS particularly vulnerable to emerging climate change challenges.

Given the importance of trade in the economies of LDCs, SVEs and SIDS, trade policy will be an important element to strengthen these countries’ resilience to external shocks, including those arising from climate change physical impacts and policies. Although the interface between trade and climate change has entered the international policy arena, much is yet to be explored in order to deepen our knowledge on the links between these two issues and their future sustainable development implications.

Competitiveness policies[5] can play a major role in creating the supply-side capacity that these countries require in order to adapt to climate change, build resilience, and connect to the world economy on better terms. To strengthen competitiveness and build supply-side capacity in the context of climate change, these countries will most likely need to deal with both mitigation and adaptation aspects. Moreover, for these countries to respond to the urgent adverse effects of climate change, face the potential negative side-effects from the implementation of climate change mitigation activities, and meet the costs of adaptation, additional effective financial resources will be required.

The purpose of this meeting is to explore key interests and concerns of LDCs, SVEs, and SIDS in the context of climate change negotiations and identify crucial issues for a positive agenda for the trade and climate change regimes. Moreover the meeting seeks to explore effective tools to reduce the vulnerability and enhance the resilience of these countries from a competitiveness and adaptation prism. It will discuss the role of trade policy and the international trading system in this context.

The dialogue will bring together Geneva-based trade negotiators from LDCs, SVEs, and SIDS; climate change and development analysts and policy-makers; civil society and private sector representatives; experts; academics; and IGOs for two days to discuss these issues and identify the policy priorities and future research agendas to address key trade and climate change issues for these countries.

Moreover, this meeting has been envisioned as a follow-up to the discussions held on the “Stakeholder Dialogue on Climate Change and Trade: Key Issues for Developing Countries” co-organised in Mauritius on September 2-3, 2008 by ICTSD, the Commonwealth Secretariat, and the Ministry of Finance and Economic Development of Mauritius. Furthermore, it will provide a space to discuss the results from the Commonwealth Finance Ministers Meeting in St. Lucia held on the 6-8 October, 2008 and prepare for the upcoming XIV Conference of the Parties to the UNFCCC, in Poznan, Poland, in December 2008.

Seats are limited. We would be very grateful if you could confirm your participation with your name, title/organization, full contact information, by the 15th November 2008, to Paolo Ghisu (Tel.: +41 22 917 8815, E-mail: pghisu@ictsd.ch).

*********************

[1] This dialogue is undertaken under ICTSD’s Global Platform on Linkages between Trade Policies, Climate Change and Sustainable Energy. An initiative supported by DANIDA (Denmark); Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Finland; the Commonwealth Secretariat; and ICTSD’s institutional funders.

[2] Least Developed Countries (LDCs) are countries which according to the United Nations exhibit the lowest indicators of socioeconomic development, with the lowest Human Development Index ratings of all countries in the world. A country is classified as a Least Developed Country if it meets three criteria based on (1) low-income, (2) human resource weakness and (3) economic vulnerability. [source: www.un.org/special-rep/ohrlls/ldc/ldc%20criteria.htm]

[3] “Many small economies face specific challenges in their participation in world trade, for example they lack economies of scale, have limited natural and human resources and face high transport costs for their exports. Some studies show that a small size may limit an economy’s possibilities to diversify local production and that this, in turn, could make it more difficult for small economies to fully integrate into the multilateral trading system.
The Doha Declaration mandates, in its paragraph 35, the General Council to examine the problems faced by small and vulnerable economies and to make recommendations to improve the integration of such economies into the multilateral trading system. This is to be done, however, without creating a new or separate sub-category of WTO members. Discussions on the mandate have taken place since 2002 in the Committee on Trade and Development (CTD) meeting in dedicated session”. [source: http://www.wto.org/english/thewto_e/minist_e/min05_e/brief_e/brief12_e.htm]

[4] Small Island Developing States (SIDS) are small island and low-lying coastal countries that share similar sustainable development challenges, including small population, lack of resources, remoteness, susceptibility to natural disasters, excessive dependence on international trade and vulnerability to global developments. In addition, they suffer from lack of economies of scale, high transportation and communication costs, and costly public administration and infrastructure. At present, fifty-one small island developing States and territories are included in the list used by the United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs. Theses States and territories often work together through the Alliance of Small Island States (AOSIS). [source: http://www.sidsnet.org/]

[5] Competitiveness Policies for Sustainable Development should be understood as “Strengthening and enhancing the production structures, trade capacity and policy institutions of a country, with a view to improving its ability for positive integration into the global system securing long term stable economic growth, based on producing goods and services that meet the test of international competition under fair market conditions, while expanding the real incomes and real freedoms of their citizens and using their natural resources and the environment in a sustainable manner, preserving their values for the benefit of present and future generations” (Corrales, Sugathan, and Primack 2003).

Emissions of greenhouse gas emissions (GHGs) between 2000 and 2006 increased on average by 3.1 percent per annum, compared to 1.1 percent in the previous decade, and are likely to continue to grow rapidly in view of high economic growth and lack of effective mitigation strategies. The impacts of climate change—such as rising temperatures and increased frequency of extreme weather events—puts severe pressure on food availability, stability, access, and utilisation.

Although rich countries are responsible for most GHGs, the impact of climate change is expected to be most severe in developing countries and on the poorest populations. Many low-income countries are located in tropical and subtropical regions, which are particularly vulnerable to rising temperatures, and in semi-desert zones, which are threatened by decreasing water availability. By 2080, agricultural output in developing countries may decline by 20 percent due to climate change, compared to 6 percent in industrialised nations. Also due to climate change, yields in developing countries could further decrease by 15 percent on average by 2080. Taking into account the effects of climate change, the number of undernourished people in Sub-Saharan Africa may triple between 1990 and 2080. Climate change shocks also erode the long-term opportunities for human development and could exacerbate inequalities within countries.

The higher susceptibility of the poor is also due to limited adaptive capacities. Low-income communities depend directly on agriculture, forestry, fisheries, aquaculture, and other climate-sensitive resources. Their vulnerability is exacerbated by inadequate complementary services, such as health, education, and insurance services, and lacking agricultural extension.

The risks climate change poses on food security are particularly pressing at a time of high oil prices. High fuel prices make agricultural production more expensive by raising the cost of fertilizers, irrigation, and transportation. This increased level and volatility of agricultural prices is negatively impacting the purchasing power and the food security of the poor. The decline of food commodity prices in the context of the financial crisis is probably only temporary. The access to capital for sustainable agricultural and water development investments is further constrained by the financial crisis.

The availability of agricultural products is also affected by climate change directly through its impacts on crop yields, crop pests and diseases, soil fertility and water-holding properties, and variable weather conditions. Last by not least, food utilisation is threatened by climate change through effects on human health and the spread of diseases in geographical areas not previously affected. As agricultural production declines, food prices rise, and purchasing power decreases, physical, economic, and social access to food is severely affected. For the poor, climate change impacts the four key dimensions of food security – availability, stability, access, and utilisation.

The problem or the solution?

While agriculture is part of the climate change problem, it is also part of the solution. However, the expansion of agricultural production as an energy source has broad and complex implications. Biofuels have raised hopes for reducing greenhouse gas emissions, mitigating climate change on a global or regional scale, and reducing the environmental risks to food security. Yet, biofuel expansion can also add to the greenhouse gas emissions problem through the conversion of forests and grassland to energy crop production. With land-use change, increased world corn-based ethanol production is estimated to increase greenhouse gas emissionsand for palm oil-based biodiesel produced even more so.

On the positive side, biofuels could benefit the poor through raising agricultural incomes, creating additional rural jobs in crop harvesting and processing, and utilising marginal lands and crop residues. The extent to which these potentials are realised depends on the farmers’ ability to access information and markets, produce at competitive prices and at sufficient economies of scale, and afford new biofuel sources. However, economies of scale in ethanol production—at least to date—favour large scale farms, while the existing subsidy regimes and import restrictions undermine the comparative advantage of developing countries. New technology such as that associated with sweet sorghum may change this pattern, however.

In terms of food availability, biofuels could unduly divert land and water resources, capital and political attention away from the production of food. Rising demand for biofuel feedstocks also puts strong upward pressure on agricultural commodity prices and thus on access to food. Further, the stability of food supplies is put at risk as volatile energy prices translate into larger food-price fluctuations, to which poor people have little capacity to adjust. These increases in crop prices are also accompanied by a net decrease in calorie consumption in all regions. The largest decrease is in Sub-Saharan Africa, where calorie availability is projected to fall by more than eight percent if biofuels expand as drastically as planned. In addition, the pressure biofuels put on water for household use could pose health risks and undermine food utilisation. At the same time, however, local biofuel production could provide cleaner and cheaper cooking and heating fuel alternatives and have positive health consequences for the poor.

A rapid, coordinated, and multidisciplinary response is needed to respond to climate change and related emerging risks. Building on the fundamentals of good development policy is essential but not enough to ensure food security under new climate change challenges and threats. Effective adaptation and mitigation strategies must be proactive and explicitly target the impacts of climate change and energy (biomass) developments on the poor. The needed response involves a combination of science, institutional, and policy innovations, which should be taken into account in global, regional, and national strategies, and should comprise three main elements:

1. A science and technology strategy

For climate change mitigation, the technological innovations needed include early warning systems for droughts, floods, and other natural disasters, better soil and water management, and seed varieties more resistant to adverse climatic conditions. For adaptation and long-term productivity, biodiversity should also be maintained and enhanced, for example through gene banks. Carbon sequestration, a process that removes carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, should be encouraged to mitigate the increase of carbon concentration. Also, more support should be given to developing clean bioenergy technologies that do not compete with food production.

To achieve long-term agricultural growth and build a more resilient food system that can meet ongoing and future challenges, developing country governments should also increase their medium- and long-term investments in agricultural research and connect to international science and knowledge-sharing systems. In addition, new approaches to scientific partnerships should be developed and expanded. Co-funding and cooperation among public institutions, foundations, and private enterprises should play an important role in building and advancing the scientific base.

2. Markets and trade policy strategies that call for global institutional arrangements of carbon and biofuels trading

Developed countries should eliminate domestic biofuel subsidies and open their markets to biofuel exporters for biofuels from sustainable production. In view of high food prices, measures to make more agricultural products available for food and feed include freezing biofuel production based on grains and oilseeds. Transparent and equitable standards of carbon and biofuels trading are needed, including sustainability and performance-based standards rather than technology-based standards that will quickly become outdated.

On the policy side, post-Kyoto Protocol rules of access must change to include activities important for developing countries such as avoiding deforestation, soil carbon sequestration, and mitigating methane and nitrous oxide. The Clean Development Mechanism rules should be refined to encourage small farmer participation and to change existing regulations that impose high costs on developing carbon markets in poor countries. Ongoing climate change negotiations under the Bali Action Plan should lead to a new binding international climate change agreement with appropriate carbon-trading and carbon-offset policies (e.g. cap-and-trade and carbon-tax instruments) that include economic incentives for engaging small farmers in developing countries. Farmers’ organisations should cooperate at the national and international level to link small farmers to global carbon markets. Ensured by efficient contracts, the private sector and small farmers can engage in mutually-beneficial projects in carbon sequestration and decentralised bio-energy crop production.

3. An insurance and social protection strategy for the food insecure poor to respond to the growing complexities of food system changes

To reduce the vulnerability of poor households to adverse climate and energy price shocks and to prevent new households from falling into poverty, there is an increased need to strengthen public and market-based social protection mechanisms. Examples of social protection policies include social safety nets (such as conditional or unconditional cash transfers, public works and school feeding programs, subsidies on items consumed by the poor, microcredit, and crop insurance), health insurance, and social security. In addition, the triggers of emergency agencies to respond to crises should be improved. New and innovative insurance mechanisms and private-public partnerships should also be introduced at a larger scale to expand coverage among the poor. Insurance and social protection must be adjusted to the individual circumstances of each country and should be supported by investment in rural infrastructure and services, and good governance.

The way forward

It is clear that action is needed to address the acute and long-term impacts of climate change, particularly in the developing world. Each country should develop and implement a viable national action plan, which takes into account future development paths, expected climate change impacts, and adaptation and mitigation costs. Appropriate prioritisation, sequencing, and institutionalisation of mechanisms are essential. Proposed solution for the short-term should also not undermine long-term climate mitigation options. Global actors should coordinate their transfer of resources, knowledge, and technology, and build a global response to address climate change risks, beyond a single post-Kyoto agreement.

Joachim von Braun is Director General of the International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI)

WTO LAW AND INTERNATIONAL EMISSIONS TRADING: IS THERE POTENTIAL FOR CONFLICT? By Christina Voigt, University of Oslo (Faculty of Law), 2008. This article explores the ways in which UNFCCC Annex 1 countries will continue their emission reduction policies with minimum harm to their own economies, whether these means are within WTO regulations and the extent of their flexibility. The paper also examines whether international emissions have a place in WTO agreements to begin with. To access the article, please refer to http://ssrn.com/abstract=1145242

A PROPOSAL FOR A GLOBAL EMISSIONS TRADING SCHEME FOR AVIATION AND SHIPPING. By Terry Barker, Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research, June 2008. Policies to cut C02 emissions from all sectors, including transportation, have become more critical. Dangerous climate change has gotten scientific backup but a suitable network for implementing effective mitigation policies does not exist of yet. This paper supports the proposal for a global emissions trading scheme (GETS). To access the paper, please refer to http://www.tyndall.ac.uk/publications/briefing_notes/bn26.pdf

GROWING UNREST: THE LINKS BETWEEN FARMED AND FISHED RESOURCES AND THE RISK OF CONFLICT. By Alec Crawford and Oli Brown, IISD, June 2008. This paper presents evidence on how the production and trade of fished and farmed commodities can attribute to the onset or continuation of violent conflict. The paper relies on two case studies. To access the paper, please refer to http://www.iisd.org/pdf/2008/growing_unrest_resources.pdf

ENERGY AND CLIMATE: OPPORTUNITIES FOR THE G-8. Directed by Michael Grubb, Cambridge Centre for Energy Studies, 2008. The Climate Strategy report was aimed at world leaders participating in the G8 Summit in Toyako, Japan. It raises the battle against rising carbon emissions to the forefront as a response to rising oil and energy prices. It warns of a possibility that new sources of oil could emit twice as much C02. The paper outlines five key proposals for G8 leaders to consider in Toyako. To access the paper, please refer to http://www.climate-strategies.org/uploads/ClimateStrategiesG8report.pdf

INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS AND TRADITIONAL KNOWLEDGE: BIOPIRACY OR BIOPROSPECTING? By Michael J. Krieger, ETH Zürich, 28 June 2008. This paper talks about the equitable sharing of biological resources and explores alternative approaches to those offered by the Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) and the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD). To access the paper, please refer to http://www.bepress.com/ndsip/reports/art15/

THE GLOBAL IP UPWARD RATCHET, ANTI-COUNTERFEITING AND PIRACY ENFORCEMENT EFFORTS: THE STATE OF PLAY. By Susan Sell, George Washington University, 9 June 2008. This paper provides a review of the current global efforts to move forward IP enforcement. The paper explores the people, institutions and strategies behind these efforts regionally as well as internationally. To access the paper, please refer to http://www.iqsensato.org/?p=69

SUCCESS STORIES FROM THE REALIZATION OF FARMERS’ RIGHTS RELATED TO PLANT GENETIC RESOURCES FOR FOOD AND AGRICULTURE. By Regine Andersen and Tone Winge, the Fridtjof Nansen Institute, 2008. This report is a patchwork of 17 Farmers’ Rights success stories from 11 countries. To access the report, please refer to http://www.fni.no/doc&pdf/FNI-R0408.pdf

Coming up in the next two weeks

14-18 July, Geneva, Switzerland. 57TH MEETING OF THE CITES STANDING COMMITTEE. This meeting is organised by the Secretariat of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora. Internet http://www.cites.org/eng/news/calendar.shtml

14-19 July, Dar Es Salaam, Tanzania. SECOND AFRICAN REGIONAL MEETING ON THE STRATEGIC APPROACH TO INTERNATIONAL CHEMICALS MANAGEMENT (SAICM) AND ASSOCIATED UNEP WORKSHOPS. This event is hosted by the Government of Tanzania. The meeting is immediately preceded by the UNEP Workshop on Strengthening Chemicals Management Infrastructures 14-15 July 2008. Internet: http://www.chem.unep.ch/saicm/meeting/afreg/Dar%20es%20Salaam/Default.htm

15-17 July, Accra, Ghana. REGIONAL WORKSHOP ON IMPROVING FOREST LAW COMPLIANCE AND GOVERNANCE IN TROPICAL WEST AFRICA. This workshop is organized by the UN Food and Agriculture Organization and the International Tropical Timber Organization. The workshop will showcase possible approaches to improving forest law compliance at the country level. Internet: http://www.itto.or.jp/live/PageDisplayHandler?pageId=223&id=3970

22-25 July, Bangkok, Thailand. TECHNICAL MEETING OF THE ASIA-PACIFIC NETWORK FOR FOOD AND NUTRITION. This meeting is on “nutrition interventions for food security – can they work effectively in isolation?” The meeting is organised by the UN Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO). For more information please contact Biplab K. Nandi.

Other upcoming events

5-8 August, Manado, Indonesia. SECOND ASIA-PACIFIC FISHERY COMMISSION REGIONAL CONSULTATIVE FORUM. This meeting is organised by the UN Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO). Internet: http://www.fao.org

11-13 August, Manado, Indonesia. ASIA-PACIFIC FISHERY COMMISSION. This is the Commission’s 30th session. The meeting is organized by the UN Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO). For more information please contact Simon Funge-Smith

15-17 August, Dhaka, Bangladesh. INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON FINANCING FOR CLIMATE CHANGE - CHALLENGES AND WAY FORWARD. This conference is arranged by Bangladesh-based think tank Unnayan Onneshan and will focus on financial mechanisms for supporting mitigation activities to combat climate change. Internet: http://www.unnayan.org

17-23 August, Stockholm, Sweden. PROGRESS AND PROSPECTS FOR WATER: FOR A CLEAN AND HEALTHY WORLD. This topic is the theme for the 2008 World Water Week, the leading annual global meeting place for capacity-building, partnership- building and follow-up on the implementation of international processes and programmes in water and development. The World Water Week in Stockholm is arranged by SIWI. For the printable Programme Schedule please refer to http://www.worldwaterweek.org/Downloads/Overview.pdf. For more information please contact: tel. +46 (0)8 522 139 60 ; e-mail katarina.andrzejewska@siwi.org

The new agreement concerns flights taking off from or landing in Europe and includes both EU and non-EU airlines. Emissions will be counted from commercial flights as well as from government flights. Excluded from the scheme are light planes with a take-off weight under 5,7 tonnes, UN-approved humanitarian flights, emergency flights, flights by police, customs or military forces, research flights and flights by small, low-emission (10, 000 tonnes per year) airlines.

Industries included in the ETS have to buy and sell permits that allow them to emit carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. Every tonne of CO2 produced by aircraft going into or out of Europe will need to be matched by a permit. Airlines exceeding their allocation will need to buy a proportion of their permits from sectors that have reduced their emissions or from accredited projects in countries outside Europe that are working to offset carbon emissions.

Eighty-five percent of emissions certificates for aviation will be allocated for free according to a common European benchmark and the remaining fifteen percent will be auctioned. Environmental organisations criticised the high percentage of free certificates. Aviation now accounts for three percent of all C02 emissions within the EU, but air traffic is set to double by 2020.

Airlines operating inside the EU are worried that their ability to compete on the international market will suffer as a consequence of the new agreement, especially in light of concurrently rising fuel costs. The European Commission predicts an increase of EUR4.60 to EUR39.60 for customers on return flight tickets by the year 2020, depending on the length of the flight. The International Aviation Organisation (ICAO), a UN agency coordinating and regulating international air travel, does not support the EU’s move to impose ETS rules onto non-EU airlines landing in Europe, preferring a global approach to stemming greenhouse gases from the aviation sector. Disagreement over the issue has already caused friction in the past (Bridges Trade BioRes, 5 October 2007, http://www.ictsd.org/biores/07-10-05/story1.htm).

Aviation emissions were excluded from the 1997 Kyoto Protocol. Parties to the Kyoto Protocol simply agreed that greenhouse gas emissions from international aviation should be limited or reduced. Responsibility regarding aviation has been largely given over to the ICAO. In the ten years following the Kyoto Protocol, emissions from aviation grew faster than those generated by any other mode of transport.

“EU Includes Aviation in C02 Curbs”, AIRPORTWATCH, 9 July 2008; “T&E Reaction to EU Aviation Emissions Trading Agreement”, T&E, 26 June 2008; “EU Lawmakers Confirm Deal on Airline C02 Emissions”, REUTERS, 30 June 2008; “EU Lawmakers Approve Deal on C02 Emissions”, REUTERS, 9 July 2008; “Europe Approves Imposition of ETS Beginning in 2012”, ATW DAILY NEWS, 9 July 2008; “Airlines Get an Easy Ride in EU Climate Deal”, AIRPORTWATCH, 8 July 2008.

Meeting in Oslo, Norway, from 23-27 June, an inter-sessional Working Group on Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Ships under the International Maritime Organisation (IMO) considered technical issues related to controlling greenhouse gas emissions from ships. The work is set to provide the foundation for political decisions to be taken at later meetings under the auspices of the IMO. The work is being undertaken on an ambitious schedule, as the IMO is planning to propose a legally-binding regime on controlling shipping emissions of greenhouse gases at the fifteenth Conference of the Parties (COP-15) to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) in December 2009.

At the meeting in Oslo, the experts participating shared views and information on a mandatory “CO2 Design Index” for ships, based on which operators can determine the relative carbon efficiency of a ship and calculate its emissions. Work in this area, as well as its implementation on a voluntary basis, is well established, with several countries and shipping companies already indexing their carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions under an interim operational CO2 index.

The meeting also discussed international regulatory options, such as imposing a levy on CO2 emissions from the shipping sector, or developing an emissions trading scheme. These options were also recently discussed in a working group under the UNFCCC (see Bridges Trade BioRes, 13 June 2008, http://www.ictsd.org/biores/08-06-13/inbrief.htm). The IMO meeting did not take any decision or make recommendations on the politically sensitive question of whether the international regulatory scheme should apply to all ships, or only those operated by developed country parties to the UNFCCC and/or the Kyoto Protocol.

The Working Group will report back to the IMO Marine Environment Protection Committee, which is scheduled to meet from 6-10 October this year in London.

ICTSD reporting; “Oslo meeting prepares ground on GHG reduction mechanisms,” IMO RELEASE, 1 July 2008.

The annual meeting of the G8 (Group of Eight) - comprising Britain, Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Russia, and the US - met from 7-9 July at the resort island of Hokkaido Toyako, Japan. Leaders from seven African states and other major emerging economies, including China and India, also participated in this week’s talks with the G8 leaders, making it, with 22 countries, the largest gathering in the event’s 33 year history.

Japanese Prime Minister Yasuo Fukuda, the host of this year’s talks, set the G8 agenda with a strong emphasis on climate change and energy security, stating that he would like to see the meeting conclude with an agreement on targets to halve greenhouse gases by the year 2050. At their meeting in Germany last year, the G8 leaders indicated their desire to consider cutting carbon emissions by 2050, but the US resisted any firm pledge.

At this year’s meeting, the leaders agreed to a ’shared vision’ on climate change, including committing their economies to cut their carbon emissions in half by the year 2050. This marks the first time the US and Russia have agreed to a specific long-term goal for greenhouse gas emission reductions.

However, environmental groups were quick to criticise the G8 ‘shared vision’ on climate change for its low level of ambition and its imprecise nature. The global 50-percent reduction of carbon emissions is not indexed to a specific base year, and the agreement leaves out any specific mention of targets for medium- or short-term carbon emission reductions, instead urging each nation to formulate its own such goals.

Ambassador Koji Tsuruoka (Japan) - who briefed reporters on the decision - stated that the motivation for the broad and legally non-binding agreement was “to engage the rest of the world” - namely major emerging economies like China and India. President Bush has long vowed not to adopt mandatory objectives unless developing countries like China sign on to similar targets. The desire to include major developing countries was reflected in the G8 climate change communiqué released Tuesday: “achieving this objective will only be possible through common determination of all major economies,” the statement said.

The G8 leaders also stressed that progress towards ambitious reduction goals is closely linked with accelerated technology development and diffusion. To this end, the leaders committed themselves to dedicating US$ 10 billion annually to climate technology and research.

Following the G8-only meeting on climate change, they met in an expanded group of the so-called ‘major emitters’, including Australia, Indonesia, South Korea, India, China, Brazil, Mexico and South Africa. Together, these nations, which account for 80 percent of the world’s carbon dioxide emissions, attempted to forge an international consensus for a way forward on global warming.

In the statement released from the joint meeting, all the economies were in agreement that “deep cuts in global emissions will be necessary to achieve the Convention’s ultimate objective” and that cooperative action is required to promote the success of the Copenhagen 2009 climate change conference. They did not agree on any specific targets.

The major emitters also said they would “direct our trade officials responsible for WTO issues to advance with a sense of urgency their discussions on issues relevant to promoting our cooperation on climate change” in order to fully promote the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change.

The 2009 G8 Summit will be hosted by Italy.

For a full report of the G8 meeting, see Bridges Weekly, 9 July 2008, at http://www.ictsd.org/weekly/08-07-09/story3.htm

ICTSD reporting; “UN Chief to G8: Climate Change, Food Crisis linked,” THE ASSOCIATED PRESS, 4 July 2008; ” “Africa Takes Centre Stage as G8 Summit Kicks Off,” REUTERS, 6 July 2008; “Ban Ki-moon: Paying the Price for Global Growth,” THE GUARDIAN, 3 July 2008; “G-8 leaders struggle to reach deal on Africa,” INTERNATIONAL HERALD TRIBUNE, 7 July 2008; G-8 summit opens with spotlight on aid for Africa,” THE ASSOCIATED PRESS, 7 July 2008; G8 countries reaffirm pledges to Africa,” UPI, 8 July 2008; “Financial measures sought against Zimbabwe,” REUTERS, 8 July 2008; “G8 climate deal falls short, critics say,” REUTERS, 8 July 2008.

The ninth Conference of the Parties (COP-9) to the Basel Convention on the Transboundary Movement of Hazardous Wastes and Their Disposal was held from 23-27 June. “Waste Management for Human Health and Livelihood” was the theme of the meeting, and remained the focus throughout. In addition, delegates addressed issues of electronic waste (e-waste), ship dismantling, draft technical guidelines for used tyres and mercury waste, the role of Basel Convention Regional and Coordinating Centres (BCRCs) in the convention’s overall Strategic Plan and greater cooperation with the Stockholm and Rotterdam chemicals conventions.

The Ban Amendment and Article 17(5)

Under the Ban Amendment, developed countries would be prohibited for exporting hazardous waste to developing countries, be it for final disposal, recovery or recycling. First proposed in 1995, the Ban Amendment has been a bone of contention among the parties, which remain divided over its merits and the number of ratifications required for its entry into force.

This discord stems from ambiguous language in Article 17, Paragraph 5 of the Basel Convention.
The relevant part of the paragraph states that amendments “shall enter into force between Parties having accepted them on the ninetieth day after the receipt by the Depositary of their instrument of ratification, approval, formal confirmation or acceptance by at least three-fourths of the Parties who accepted them.” This section has been interpreted in two ways.

According to the “fixed time” approach, championed by the EU and Norway, which would like to see the Ban Amendment enter into force as soon as possible, the number of ratifications required is three-quarters of the original members, or 62 out of the original 82 parties. Currently, there are 63 ratifications; however, since some of these ratifications are not from original members to the convention, some argue that not all ratifications should be calculated into the final count.

The “current time” approach, advocated by Canada, Japan and the US, requires three-quarters of current parties to the convention, or 128 of 170, to ratify the amendment. These non-signatory countries have challenged the amendment several times, fearing that it would considerably curb their recycling industries.

Without a settlement for the legal interpretation of Article 17(5), it is very unlikely that the Ban Amendment will come into force.

In its Bali Declaration, the conference failed to make any reference to the Ban Amendment. However, Rachmat Witoelar, Indonesian Minister for the Environment and president of the convention, did produce a non-paper on a “Way Forward” for the implementation of the Ban Amendment. In it, he urged parties to initiate and expedite the process by formulating “enabling conditions” that would be amenable to the amendment once it would garner enough ratifications.

“The Bali meeting has finally made a step forward [with respect to the Ban Amendment],” Witoelar said. “With the formation of a working group, we will start discussing all the practical issues relating to the Ban Amendment.”

Some were not so optimistic. Dr. O.O. Dada, of the Nigerian delegation, was “shocked” that the COP did not endorse the ban outright, and said that African nations will now look for regional agreements to regulate toxic imports.

E-products: friend or foe?

According to a report by the Global e-Report Initiative, advances in information and communication technologies (ICT) could cut global greenhouse gas emissions by fifteen percent by 2020, especially through energy efficiency schemes. Achim Steiner, Executive Director of the UN Environment Programme (UNEP), was quick to note that this rapid growth also leads to e-waste problems and as such “represents a major challenge to the international community in terms of human health and the environment.”

In the fast-paced world of electronics, where yesterday’s must-have gadget are today’s wayside refuse, waste production is a serious problem. It is estimated that some 50 million tonnes of e-waste – from mobile phones, computers and television sets, among others – are produced annually.

Despite 16 years of the Basel Convention, export in toxic waste – especially electronic waste and old ships – has actually increased. This is not surprising when you look at some statistics: current studies estimate that there are 3 billion mobile phones worldwide, and personal computers are projected to double by 2015 to two billion. With disposable incomes rapidly rising in emerging and developing countries, such growth is not likely to decline in the near future.

“Developing countries suffer enough from the ravages of hunger, poverty, infant mortality and disease,” Kevin Stairs of the Seattle-based Basel Action Network, said. “Sending them our toxic waste amounts to a cruel throwing of salt in the wounds, undertaken simply to increase profits at the expense of developing countries, their people and the global environment.” However, some developing countries welcome imports of used electronic products for recycling, as this provides opportunities for employment and economic development.

The environmental impacts of used and end-of-life products have received much attention lately due to a recent environment ministers meeting in Kobe, Japan in the run-up to the G-8 Summit (see Bridges Trade BioRes, 30 May 2008, http://www.basel.int/meetings/frsetmain.php?meetingId=1&languagId=1; also, see Bridges Trade BioRes, 15 December 2006, http://www.ictsd.org/biores/06-12-15/story1.htm).

Funding and capacity-building

COP-9 also considered funding, capacity-building and ways to enhance its effectiveness. Like many multilateral agreements based on voluntary and member contributions, the Convention faces problems with funding, implementation and insufficient capacity in developing countries that hinders combating toxic waste.

Jim Puckett of Basel Action Network shared many words of concern with the parties. “The convention risks becoming a paper tiger if its Parties cannot implement and enforce its own rules,” he said in specific reference to a site visit to Guiyu, China, where illegally imported e-waste had increased dramatically in the past few years.

Executive Secretary Katharina Kummar Peiry suggested a ten percent increase in budgeting for the Convention to help address these problems. This was met with apprehension. The EU tabled a proposal to institute a one-time, three-year budget that would be not only cost-effective, but would also bring its budget in line with the Stockholm Convention and UNEP.

COP-9 further decided that the Convention’s effectiveness would be evaluated at COP-11, especially in light of Article 15(7) which states that the “Conference of the Parties shall, [every six years]… undertake an evaluation of its effectiveness and, if deemed necessary, to consider the adoption of a complete or partial ban of transboundary movements of hazardous wastes and other wastes in light of the latest scientific, environmental, technical and economic information.”

The co-chairs of the Ad Hoc Joint Working Group (AHJWG) on Enhancing Cooperation and Coordination between the Basel, Rotterdam and Stockholm Conventions presented a set of recommendations that they thought would improve implementation at the national, regional and international levels; raise the political profile of each convention; contribute to international environmental governance discourse; and hopefully be more cost-effective by working more synergistically. Several parties expressed satisfaction for the AHJWG’s work, and many considered it to be the key success of the meeting.

The next Conference of the Parties of the Basel Convention is scheduled for 2011, at a location to be determined.

Background

The Basel Convention was adopted in March 1989 and entered into force on 5 May 1992, after the mishaps of several “toxic ships” in the late 1980s. It requires countries to obtain consent from the country of exportation before moving hazardous waste and allows countries to deny entry of waste products into their country. The Convention takes a three-step strategy to combating hazardous waste: minimising waste generation at the source, treating waste as close to its point of generation as possible and reducing the international movement of hazardous waste.

All three pillars, either implicitly or explicitly, have important trade-related aspects and implications.

Additional resources

The COP-9 documents are available at http://www.basel.int/meetings/frsetmain.php?meetingId=1&languagId=1.

For a full report of the meeting see IISD’s Earth Negotiations Bulletin at http://www.iisd.ca/basel/cop9/.

ICTSD reporting; “IT waste a ‘major challenge’ to human health: UNEP,” AFP, 26 June; “Toxic waste export harder to control, despite Basel Convention,” DAILY NEWS, 1 July; “UN conference won’t ban toxic waste exports,” AP, 27 June 2008; “United Nations waste treaty postpones long awaited toxic waste dumping ban,” BAN, 27 June 2008; “Your laptop’s dirty little secret,” TIME, 29 June 2008.

The only international forum to deal exclusively with whales, the International Whaling Committee (IWC) held its Annual Commission Meeting for the 60th time, this year in Santiago, Chile. The 81 member nations gathered to discuss issues relating to the global marine mammal stock and its past and future management. The five-day long annual conference ended on Friday, 27 June. Items discussed at this year’s meeting involved obstacles encountered in conservation work, current threats to marine mammals, marine mammals as a living resource, special whaling permits for aboriginal communities and scientific purposes, as well as research and funding.

Polarised commission working towards a change

Increasing consensus within the IWC topped the 2008 agenda. After a global moratorium on whaling was instated in 1986 the IWC has become increasingly polarised, with pro-whaling nations regularly threatening to withdraw (Bridges Trade BioRes, 8 June 2007, http://www.ictsd.org/biores/07-06-08/story2.htm). This year, the Commission saw increased efforts towards a more cooperative organisation, and held an inter-sessional meeting to seek reform (see Bridges Trade BioRes, 20 March 2008, http://www.ictsd.org/biores/08-03-20/inbrief.htm#2). At the Commission, countries decided not to vote on controversial topics, such as the possibility of establishing a third sanctuary. Japan also atypically refrained from calling a vote on reversing the commercial whaling moratorium.

Tensions exist particularly between the three big whaling countries Japan, Norway and Iceland and anti-whalers such as Australia, the US and countries in Latin America. While Norway and Iceland have continued to whale despite the moratorium, Japan officially respects the moratorium while engaging in whaling for the purposes of scientific research, which is allowed under the IWC. The IWC also grants exceptions to the whaling moratorium for aboriginal subsistence whaling.

Many IWC members, in particular those belonging to the anti-whaling Buenos Aires Group formed in 2005, see non-lethal action as a means of up-dating the organisation. Australia made a proposal for the first non-lethal scientific whale research centre at the Commission. Reportedly, the proposal was well received. Members also brought up the financial potential presented by whales as a living natural resource for coastal countries. Australia and many coastal Latin American countries rake in a substantial amount of revenues in this particular field of tourism. Total revenues from whale watching for coastal communities are estimated at US$1 billion a year. Argentina alone makes US$60 million a year, which has encouraged other Latin American countries such as Guatemala, Ecuador and Uruguay to join the IWC in recent years. As the job of the IWC is essentially regulating and protecting whales, it encourages whale watching as a non-lethal resource. At this year’s meeting, the IWC expressed a wish that research be increased in the field of whale watching and its impact on marine mammals.

Market for whale meat in decline

During the course of the previous year Japan took around 900 whales under its scientific whaling programmes. However, consumption of whale meat is waning internationally, and even in Japan, the largest consumer country. Already five years ago, environmental groups pressured UK food giant Tesco PLC into ending the sale of whale meat in Japanese supermarkets. Tesco says it reached its final decision due to lack of consumer demand. Low sales are attributed to growing international awareness of the illegal trade in whale meat and its effect on some endangered populations, combined with increased awareness of the high amount of toxins contained in whale meat. Nevertheless, both Iceland and Norway are hoping for a break into the Japanese whale meat market. In Japan, whaling researchers recently presented some two hundred schools with 10 tonnes of unsold whale meat in order to educate children about the cultural traditions associated with eating whale meat.

The Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES) recommends the IWC not to issue either export or import permits for introduction of whales from the sea for primarily commercial purposes. Despite these joint efforts, Yoshimasa Hayashi, Japanese delegate to the IWC, stated at the beginning of this year that “[Japan] is trying very hard to regain a market for whale eating.”

Addressing threats to whales

The IWC spent much of its annual meeting discussing threats to whale populations, and how to minimise these threats. These threats include oil and gas operations, ship strikes and nets. The Commission organised workshops on threats related to climate change and chemical pollution. Experts were brought in to introduce new data and, for the first time in IWC history, NGOs were permitted to address the session. Five minutes were allocated to Cento de Conservacion Cetacea, the High North Alliance, WWF, the Women´s Forum for Fish, Greenpeace and Concepesca. The IWC also explicitly recognised the importance of support from other international organisations.

Members also discussed conservation monitoring. The IWC has to date established two marine mammal sanctuaries, one in the Southern Ocean (The Southern Ocean Whale Sanctuary) and another in the Indian Ocean (the Indian Ocean Whale Sanctuary). The designation of two additional sanctuaries has been suggested in past meetings, though to no avail. The Commission lacks the three-quarter majority of votes needed to substantiate the plans. The proposal made by Brazil, Argentina and South Africa concerning the creation of a South Atlantic Sanctuary was again deliberately not voted on at this year’s meeting in order to minimise tension within the IWC. Monitoring and research was said to continue in the existing sanctuaries.

Next year’s meeting will be held in Madeira, Portugal, from 28 May to 26 June 2009.

Additional resources

IWC website http://www.iwcoffice.org/index.htm

CITES website http://www.cites.org/

“Whaling Commission’s Future to be Tested in Chile”, REUTERS, 23 June 2008; “International Whaling Commission Makes Little Progress”, ENVIRONMENTAL NEWS SERVICE, 1 July 2008; “IWC turns down Greenland natives’ whaling request”, TAIPEI TIMES, 28 June 2008; “Whales on Agenda”, NEWSWEEK, 25 June 2008; Whales Lose, Japan Wins as Whaling Meets End”, REUTERS, 30 June 2008; “Japan Goes Whaling, IWC Commissioners Sign Protest Declaration”, ENVIRONMENT NEWS SERVICE, 8 November 2005; “Iceland Begins Commercial Whaling”, BBC News, 17 October 2006; “Conservationists Welcome Tesco’s Decision to End Sale of Meat in Japan”, GREENPEACE UK, 9 November 2004; “Japanese School Kids Have Whale of a Lunchtime”, THE DAILY TELEGRAPH, 28 February 2008.

The 25 June report, entitled “Another inconvenient truth: How biofuel policies are deepening poverty and accelerating climate change,” urges the EU to reconsider its controversial target to make biofuels 10 percent of transport fuel by 2020 (see Bridges Trade BioRes, 18 April 2008, http://www.ictsd.org/biores/08-04-18/story2.htm and 25 January 2008, http://www.ictsd.org/biores/08-01-25/story1.htm). It claims the target has created a supply scramble in the South, exposing the most marginalised communities to land grabbing, exploitation and deteriorating food security. Higher food prices have pushed 105 million more people into poverty and have threatened the livelihoods of almost 300 million, Oxfam says.

Subsidies and tax exemptions for biofuels, as well as import tariffs in the EU and US that prevent the entry of feedstock, make it more profitable for farmers to grow biofuel instead of staple crops, the report finds. The clearing of forests for biofuel crops also has resulted in a net increase in greenhouse gas emissions. Oxfam estimates that the EU target could increase carbon emissions by 70 times by 2020 because of changing land use in exporting developing countries.

While the EU target is currently spurring a troubling agro-industrial model, the report argues, biofuels hold promise. There are opportunities in biodiesel for poor, rural areas — particularly in smallholder production crops such as oilseeds.

“The EU must ensure that transport emissions reductions do not come at the expense of poor people’s livelihoods,” Oxfam writes. “If not, it must accept that the ten percent target will not be reached sustainably, and therefore should not be reached at all.”

The report, “Another inconvenient truth: How biofuel policies are deepening poverty and accelerating climate change,” is available at: http://www.oxfam.org.au/media/files/AnotherInconvenientTruth.pdf.

ICTSD reporting; “Biofuel use ‘increasing poverty’,” BBC, 25 June 2008; “Biofuels pushing 30 million into poverty,” REUTERS, 25 June 2008.