Nevertheless, some progress was made on the question of new institutional arrangements, and countries appeared to continue their push forward to some form of useful decision at the annual Conference of the Parties (COP) coming up this December in Cancun.

The Ad hoc Working Group on Long-term Cooperative Action (AWG-LCA ) and the Ad hoc Working Group for Further Commitments for Annex I Parties of the Kyoto Protocol (AWG-KP) began the Bonn meetings on 2 August with the aim of continuing discussions to produce a new negotiating text. There was frustration at the beginning of the week that too much time was being spent on the negotiating process, leaving too little time for discussing the substance of the main issues. However, momentum picked up at the end of the week with discussions addressing trade issues.

Trade issues trigger momentum

When discussing the future of the carbon market and other market mechanisms for addressing climate change, China expressed concern that these instruments create the potential for trade restrictions and discrimination. Countries also raised the question of removing oil subsidies as well as changes necessary in global lifestyle and consumption patterns.

Meanwhile, bunker fuels - which are used for maritime and aviation transport - were the focus of discussions on sectoral approaches, with a number of countries highlighting the risk that measures in this sector could also generate restrictions and limitations to trade. In discussions regarding approaches for the agricultural sector, text on livestock management was proposed by a developing country (see Bridges Copenhagen Update, 5 December 2009).

There are continued discussions regarding the legal issues of the Kyoto Protocol and the new agreement on Long-term Cooperative Action (LCA). Developing countries continue to push developed countries to agree to a second commitment period when the first period ends in 2012, as well as to finish the AWG-KP’s work in order to avoid a gap between commitment periods.

Discussions advanced, albeit slowly, on the establishment of new institutions to enable technology transfer, climate finance, and adaptation for developing countries. The current proposals are a potential area for agreement at the COP in Cancun this December.

Parties still divided on Cancun approach

In terms of outcomes for Cancun, this week’s Bonn meetings suggest there could be numerous options. While some hope for a single legally-binding agreement that would unify the Kyoto Protocol with the agreements under the LCA, others are pushing hard to keep the two processes separate, up to a final set of distinct decisions.

Still others see a potential hybrid outcome with a legally binding agreement accompanied by decisions on certain issues. Luis Alfonso de Alba, Mexico’s Special Representative for Climate Change told reporters that there could be as many as three treaties aimed at legally binding countries to cut greenhouse gas emissions and supporting the countries most vulnerable to the effects of global warming.

“We are not just talking about one single legally binding instrument but a set of them,” Luis Alfonso de Alba, Mexico’s special representative for climate change, told reporters in Bonn. According de Alba, it will take “several years and several instruments” to put in place a legally binding document.

The next round of AWG-KP and AWG-LCA meetings will take place in Tianjin, China beginning 4 October. This will be immediately followed by a meeting of the BASIC leaders (Brazil, South Africa, India, and China), who will be treating “trade and climate change” as part of their upcoming agenda.

In related climate news, US Senate majority leader, Harry Reid, has given up on passing an energy bill before the six week August Congressional recess, which begins today. In lieu of the failed climate bill, Reid had shifted his focus to an energy bill primarily aimed at addressing the Gulf of Mexico oil spill (see Bridges Trade BioRes 23 July 2010).

However, on 30 July the House of Representatives approved a bill to reform offshore energy drilling practices. Action on the bill is not expected before November or later.

ICTSD Reporting. “U.N. Climate Pact Could be Three Treaties: Mexico” REUTERS, 6 Augsut 2010. “AWG-LCA 11 and AWG-KP 13 Highlights” EARTH NEGOTIATIONS BULLETIN, 5 August 2010. “U.N. Climate Talks Need Quicker Pace for Global Deal” REUTERS, 4 August 2010. “House Approves Oil Spill Reform Bill” REUTERS, 3 August 2010.

The agreement - signed on 3 August by Ecuador’s Foreign Minister Ricardo Patiño and by Rebeca Grynspan, UN Under-Secretary-General and UNDP Associate Administrator - aims to encourage rich countries to purchase “forest carbon bonds” - the proceeds of which will be deposited in an international trust fund to compensate for Ecuador’s forgone royalties.

Quito says it will need to raise at least US$3.6 billion - approximately half of what the country could earn by extracting and exporting the resource - in order to make the plan viable. If the targeted funds are not received, President Rafael Correa has said that state-run Petroecuador will develop the oil project.

Under the terms of the agreement, donor nations will receive Yasuni Guarantee Certificates (CGYs) in exchange for an environmental dividend: Ecuador will keep the oil underground.

Innovative approach

“This is Ecuador’s contribution toward combating climate change,” said Maria Espinosa, Ecuador’s minister of heritage. However, in addition to the expected carbon offsets, the deal also includes important biodiversity protection measures.

Roque Sevilla, who leads the Ecuadorian Commission on the Yasuni-ITT initiative, has said in the past that the initiative is an attempt to link the “two big issues” of global warming and loss of biodiversity under one deal.

By incorporating these interconnected issues into a deal outside traditional multilateral environmental agreements (MEAs), the agreement marks an innovative move in international cooperation on environmental protection.

“Right now, this is an avant-garde project,” Espinoza said recently. “Ten years from now projects like this will be the rule, not the exception.”

The UNDP echoed these hopes, saying the ITT initiative will act as a model for other environmental initiatives that could benefit from the alternative model. “We are witnessing the inauguration of new instruments of cooperation which will act as a basis for supporting other national and international efforts directed towards the search for economies that are in harmony with society, nature and the planet,” Grynspan said in a statement.

The deal was spearheaded by the Ecuadorian government’s Ministry of Patrimony in 2007 and designed in cooperation with the UNDP. The funds will be administered through the UNDP’s Multi-Donor Trust Fund Office, which handles 30 funds covering an array of issues - from HIV/AIDS to gender equality to climate change - in 74 countries.

Ecuador calls plan a “sacrifice”

Because the fund envisions collecting only half of what the estimated 846 million barrels of crude oil lying under the ITT could bring on the global market, Quito says it is going to great lengths to protect the environment.

“We need industrialised countries to understand, in a spirit of shared responsibility, that what we have decided this historic morning is a sacrifice for our country,” said Ecuador’s Vice-President Lenín Moreno, referring to the importance of oil exports in Ecuador’s economy.

Ecuador is a significant player in the global oil industry. In addition to currently holding the rotating OPEC presidency, Ecuador exports some 327,000 barrels of oil per day, making it Latin America’s third-largest oil exporter. Approximately half of the country’s total export earnings come from oil.

“We still have to collect the funds for the initiative to become a reality,” Moreno cautioned.

Germany has already signed on to contribute US$50 million per year over 12 years to the fund. Quito says Spain, France, Italy, Belgium, and others are likely candidates as well.

In March of this year, President Correa said if adequate funds are not raised, his administration would implement “Plan B,” whereby Ecuador would use the funds already collected to invest in renewable energy initiatives, such as wind and solar power. Meanwhile, Petroecuador would extract oil from the park with “minimum environmental impact.”

The 982,000 hectare Yasuni National Park is located in the Upper Napo valley in Ecuador’s Western Amazon region. Scientists say it is home to more tree types than exist in all of North America and boasts more species of wildlife than any other place on earth.

More information

The official Yasuni-ITT Initiative website can be accessed here. (Spanish only)

“Ecuador, For Pay, Will Not Drill In Amazon Reserve,” REUTERS, 4 August 2010; “Ecuador Signs Fund For Non-Drilling Of Yasuni-ITT Oil,” WALL STREET JOURNAL, 3 August 2010; “UN agency and Ecuador sign deal to protect ecological site from oil drilling,” UN NEWS AGENCY, 4 August 2010; UNDP, Ecuador agree trust for Yasuni bonds,” CARBONPOSITIVE, 4 August 2010; Ecuador Says It Has “Plan B” If Yasuni Initiative Fails,” LATIN AMERICAN HERALD TRIBUNE, 6 March 2010.

After years of discussions that never went beyond boilerplate statements and exchanges of views, this time deliberations focused on the wording of a possible text. Experts from around the world submitted specific proposals on how the agreement might be drafted.

While participants described the meeting’s atmosphere as positive and constructive, the deliberations revealed a wide gap in positions - particularly between developed and developing countries - on the nature and substantive provisions of the instrument in question.

The IWG format proves effective

The expert meeting, which took place at WIPO headquarters in Geneva from 19 to 23 July, was the first of three such Inter-sessional Working Groups (IWGs) that have been scheduled by the WIPO Intergovernmental Committee on Intellectual Property, Genetic Resources, Traditional Knowledge and Folklore (IGC). The IWG meetings are meant to “provide legal and technical advice and analysis” to the IGC’s work. This meeting, the first IWG, was chaired by Thailand and focused on traditional cultural expressions (TCEs). The talks on TCEs are widely considered to be the most mature of the three negotiating areas on the IGC’s agenda.

In 2009, the WIPO General Assembly provided a new mandate to the eight-year-old IGC to move to “text-based negotiations” with the aim of “reaching agreement on a text of an international legal instrument (or instruments) which will ensure the effective protection of genetic resources, traditional knowledge, and traditional cultural expressions.” The mandate also called for the IGC to develop a “clearly defined work programme” for 2010 and 2011.

At its previous sessions, the IGC delegates grappled with how to accelerate their work and make progress in fulfilling their mandate. In May, they agreed to set up the series of expert meetings. The IWG process was not given a mandate to adopt texts or proposals, but its work will be submitted to the IGC for advice and technical support.

The agreed format for the IWG - one national expert per country operating in his or her personal capacity, interacting with indigenous experts and NGOs representatives to address the three issues one at a time - saw focused, technical discussions that were much more productive than the more general IGC meetings have been in the past.

Wide gap in positions on substantive obligations

Discussions at the experts’ meeting were based on a document of 11 draft articles entitled “Revised Provisions for the Protection of Traditional Cultural Expressions/Expressions of Folklore (WIPO/GRTKF/IC/17/4 Prov.). The document identifies drafting proposals and comments made by participants at the May session of IGC as well as other amendments that were subsequently submitted to the Secretariat by member states and observers.

The debate revealed that significant differences remain over many articles of the future instrument such as those relating to the subject matter of protection (article 1), beneficiaries (article 2), acts of misappropriation (article 3), management of rights (article 4), exceptions and limitations (article 5), term of protection (article 6), sanctions and remedies (article 7), transitional measures (article 9) and the relationship with intellectual property protection (article 10).

For instance, in the discussion on beneficiaries (article 2), indigenous experts were strongly in favour of stipulating “indigenous peoples” as the beneficiaries of the new protection regime, arguing that the new instrument must be consistent with the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. Other experts expressed a preference for terms such as “nations” and “local and traditional communities.” The latter term is used in the Draft Protocol on the Protection of Traditional Knowledge and Expressions of Folklore that was adopted within the framework of the African Regional Intellectual Property Organization (ARIPO). A compromise solution proposed by the African Group would be to simply mention that the owners of the rights would be the “holders” of the TCEs.

Experts from developed countries posed questions about references to the “customary law” of indigenous and local communities in the new protection scheme. They asked how such rules would relate to national legislation and noted the difficulties of identifying customary laws in practice.

On term of protection (article 6), developing country experts and indigenous experts argued in favour of an indefinite protection for TCEs, while developed countries tended to prefer that protection be limited in time, at least in relation to the exercise of economic rights over the TCE in question.

In relation to management of rights (article 4), discussions centred on when and how a designated competent authority (national, regional or local) could act on behalf of the beneficiaries of protection. Many African nations favoured a regime with strong involvement of national authorities.

On sanctions and remedies (article 7), divergences evolved around whether criminal sanctions should be included in the instrument. Some countries noted that their national laws already provided for such criminal sanctions in cases of misappropriation. Others, however, particularly from the North, either argued against the inclusion of criminal sanctions or said that they should be severely limited in scope.

In relation to transitional measures (article 9), disagreements focused on the status of rights acquired before the entry into force of the new protection scheme and if and how they should be brought into conformity with it.

Finally, on the relationship with intellectual property protection (article 10), many developed countries, emphasised that the new protection regime for TCEs should in no way affect the international legal protection provided by other intellectual property rights, copyrights in particular.

One issue that arose several times during the discussion concerned how the protection of TCEs might impact the public domain. Developed countries expressed concern that an extensive protection would limit the amount of material available in the public domain.

After discussions in the plenary, six informal open-ended drafting groups were created to consolidate the various views expressed in the meeting and to propose streamlined text, including options on each cluster of issues. As a result, a new draft of the 11 articles was presented on the last day of the meeting. The draft, which reflects a number of options, will be put forward as the “advice” the IWG was requested to provide to the IGC.

However, a number of African countries noted that the drafting groups had not limited their work to removing duplications, but had taken the freedom to prioritise, remove and add proposals to the text. As such, the group said, the drafting groups had negotiated on behalf of the plenary.

At the end of the meeting an agreement was reached on how to address these concerns. As a result, the work of the IWG will be presented at the 17th IGC in three parts: the work of the informal working groups on the text of 11 articles; the summary record of questions, concerns and comments to that text made on the last day of the meeting; and additional options proposed by experts at the last day of the meeting giving room for other options to be included including the ones suggested by African countries. The three parts should be viewed as a single document, IWG decided.

A separate document, the record of the deliberations over the entire week, will also be presented to the next IGC meeting in December 2010.

The IWG also recognised the need to include a glossary with definitions of key terms in the text and recommended formally that at its next session the IGC request the Secretariat to prepare such a glossary for consideration by the IGC. It was specified that the glossary should draw, as far as possible, from existing United Nations and other international instruments.

The meeting’s discussions reflected the complexity involved in establishing a sui generis regime for the protection of TCEs given the diversity of viewpoints on issues that are intertwined with the cultural fabric of many countries and communities around the world.

However, the talks generated cautious optimism among the participants about the possibility of achieving more progress at the next meetings of the IGC. It remains to be seen, however, whether this new set of articles will allow the parties to resolve their outstanding differences.

ICTSD reporting.

Dealing with global food security challenges will hinge upon a country’s ability to produce or purchase staple foods at affordable prices. Growth in agricultural productivity, already lagging globally, faces increasing threats from climate change, scarce water supplies, and competition for energy resources from industry and urbanisation.  Along with a strategy to increase agricultural productivity and diversity, improved global and regional trade must be part of the solution to provide adequate global nutrition.

Countries vary in their trade orientation because of underlying forces affecting demand and supply which are influenced by changing consumer preferences, geography, infrastructure and technology, and policies affecting market access (Regmi et al, 2005). As globalization of the food industry enables firms to have easier access to commodity, capital, and technology markets, countries can specialize in commodities for which they have an inherent comparative advantage.  Thus, trade links food supply to demand and ensures stable access across all food categories and countries.

The Political Economy Shapes Trade Policies

Drawing from the political economy literature, Swinnen summarizes the empirical evidence of the political economy of agricultural trade into three patterns: anti-trade, development, and relative income (2010).

The anti-trade pattern refers to import-competing sectors being taxed less than export-competing sectors. Many developing countries impose taxes on farmers in the export sector as an important source of revenue while developed countries heavily subsidize farmers.  High agriculture taxation is associated with low agriculture growth and slower growth in the economy (World Bank, 2008). When a large proportion of the population is rural, then the agricultural sector is typically large and comprised of many small producers across the rural areas.  Rural populations tend to generally be less affluent and less educated, thereby having a weaker voice in policy-making compared to the stronger voice of the urban population. In this case, consumers are found to have a relatively stronger lobby.

The development pattern refers to the shift from agricultural taxation to protection as countries develop economically, consumers tend to spend less on food as a proportion of income, and the pressure for adopting policies which lower food declines.

The relative income pattern refers to the observation that protection increases when farm income falls relative to the rest of the economy. A parallel to this is when agriculture and farmers represent a smaller portion of the economy and labour force and governments tend to adopt policies which favour farmers’ incomes. Often this pattern is prevalent in countries with a political framework that accommodates equal representation to different localities regardless of actual population.

Timmer argues there has been a universal shift in the agricultural policy toward greater government intervention to increase food production, lower food prices and assure more reliable food access for poor households (2010). Global trends of increasing urban populations and decreasing agricultural share of domestic product suggest that this shift parallels some combination of the development and relative income policy patterns.

Recent estimates show that the global costs of trade tariffs and subsidies could reach $100 to $300 billion a year by 2015 from which about two-thirds come from agricultural tariffs and subsidies (World Bank, 2008).  Developing countries’ trade policies are estimated to account for approximately 30 percent of these welfare costs (World Bank, 2008).

Global welfare costs due to market access restrictions such as tariffs and non-tariff barriers (NTBs) far outweigh costs resulting from export subsidies or domestic support across all products.  According to World Bank data, overall average applied agricultural tariffs have decreased significantly from 1981-2007. However, NTBs, may quickly displace import tariffs as a serious obstruction to trade, particularly for countries which are less adept at navigating different regulations.

A variety of forces are behind trade restrictions, not the least of which is politics. From a political economy perspective, incentives exist across countries to implement short-term policies which potentially stabilize domestic jobs and hunger immediately as opposed to long-term policies which promote competitive global markets and stable access to food.  These incentives must be borne in mind as strategies are formed to help countries maintain stable food access.

Physical and Informational Infrastructure Inhibit Participation in Global Trade

Countries cannot fully leverage the global trading scheme to address food security issues without a strong market infrastructure such as roads, market information, established grades and standards, and contract enforcement. Staple food market performance in countries with undernourished populations continues to be challenged by poor infrastructure. According to Stephen Hayes, President of the Corporate Council on Africa, “as much as 75 to 80 percent of [agribusiness] production is not getting to market in parts of Africa due to a lack of roads, transportation, processing, refrigeration and other infrastructure.”

Infrastructure to support trade in agricultural products appears to have suffered from political economy incentives.  For example, country leaders may be driven to allocate a greater share of scarce funds to support more vocal urban constituents rather than allocate these resources to less organized and less educated rural constituents.

Given the relative neglect in connecting the rural agricultural base to markets, transport costs can account for up to one-third of GDP and can represent much of the export value for many landlocked countries.  The high transport costs in these countries inflate the prices of consumer goods through increased fuel, capital goods, and intermediate input costs. Additional transport costs increase the overall cost of domestic agricultural and industrial production.

There are countless examples of limitations to efficient trade due to poor domestic market infrastructure that impact the ability to feed vulnerable populations. It is clear that efficiency and the ability to react to market signals reduce transaction costs and maximize income. Reductions in food costs are critical when a population spends a large proportion of income on basic food needs. What remains is the question of how to overcome these challenges.

The US Feed the Future Initiative as a Global Partnership to Reduce Hunger

In response to food security challenges facing the world, the Obama Administration launched the Feed the Future (FTF) Initiative in spring 2009. FTF aims to support global efforts to empower undernourished populations by reducing poverty and increasing purchasing power. This Initiative recognizes the limitations countries face due to political economy and infrastructural issues in their efforts to increase domestic food security and, ultimately, develop human capital. The Initiative seeks to help countries identified as FTF Focus Countries  across Africa, Asia, and Latin America and the Caribbean overcome these domestic challenges by providing cohesive, comprehensive, and accountable external support.

The Initiative, which is focused on a dedicated and comprehensive program, aims to facilitate moving from a short-term to a long-term food security strategy by partnering with countries committed to  results-based programs that account for a country’s unique socio and economic characteristics.  Furthermore, the Initiative’s long-term focus on strengthening domestic infrastructure and regional trade integration is expected to help producers and consumers respond more easily to market signals and reduce costs throughout the supply chain.

Political economy forces are likely the least transparent and straightforward of the challenges faced by the Initiative in significantly affecting global food security.  Aligning incentives and interests across all parties involved with the Initiative is likely to be the key to any successes achieved. To both align these interests and achieve efficiencies, the Initiative intends to focus on strengthening strategic resource coordination across a diverse set of partners and stakeholders. Specifically, leveraging the benefits of multilateral institutions ought to better align priorities and approaches, coordinate investments and fill financial and technical assistance gaps.

Despite the many challenges, the Feed the Future Initiative aims to achieve a lasting foundation for change by addressing the root causes of global hunger.

This piece is drawn from a longer study by Andrea Woolverton, Anita Regmi and M. Ann Tutwiler that can be accessed here.

The quota agreement has been in place since 2002, when high levels of poaching and illegal trade led to the near complete collapse of the sturgeon population in the Caspian Sea. CITES member states agreed that countries sharing access to sturgeon stocks should be required to work together to ensure the industry is sustainable.

After June meeting in Tehran, Iran, the countries agreed upon export quotas, which were published by CITES on 23 July. The total 2010 caviar quota is 81 tonnes - five tonnes less than the total quota in 2008 and 200 tonnes less than 2001. “They are not huge differences but the trend is going down,” said Carlos Vasquez, a spokesman for CITES.

Caviar quotas for Caspian States amount to 3 tonnes of the prized beluga, 17 tonnes of sevruga, and 61 tonnes of osetra. The quota year for sturgeon meat and caviar runs from 1 March 2010 to 28 February 2011, which aligns with the fishing season.

Environmentalists call for complete ban

The wild sturgeon population of the Caspian Sea provides 90 percent of the world’s black caviar - unfertilised sturgeon eggs. Due the popularity of the delicacy, stocks have been declining steadily since the early 1990s, when the industry was tightly regulated by Soviet Moscow. All species of Caspian sturgeon are now listed as “critically endangered” by the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN).

Still, all species - including the rapidly declining beluga - remain listed under CITES Appendix II, which restricts their trade on a scientific basis, but does not ban it entirely; trade is illegal only for species listed under Appendix I of CITES.

Of particular concern to environmental groups is the beluga sturgeon, which has been banned in the United States since 2005. The 2010 Beluga export quotas have dropped from their 2008 levels with Iran at 800 kilos from 1,000 in 2008, Kazakhstan at 1,500 kilos from 1,700 and Azerbaijain at a quota of zero from 300 kilos in 2008.

“It’s ludicrous to allow any fishing,” said Ellen Pikitch, executive director of the Institute for Ocean Conservation Science at Stony Brook University in Stony Brook, US. “The quotas should all have been zero for all of these species.”

Black market

However, some say that banning international trade of caviar entirely could be counterproductive. “It was a mistake to have no quotas because it led to an increase in the black market,” said Armen Petrossian a major US-based caviar importer.

Mounting demand and limited supply will lead to an increase in the price of wild caviar but it will take at least a month for the prices to settle. Petrossian estimated that prices would be as much as US$500 an ounce. Some experts say wild caviar could cost more than double that of the highest quality farmed caviar.

In the absence of wild caviar, many consumers have become accustomed to the widely available, consistent and less costly farmed caviar, which is now produced at high quality.

In 2006, Caspian countries were also unable to agree on quotas (see Bridges Trade BioRes, 20 January 2006).  Every other year since 2002, the countries have been successful.

Countries sharing the Black Sea and Lower Danube sturgeon stocks (Romania, Bulgaria and Serbia), and the Heilongjiang Amur River sturgeon stocks (China and Russia) have yet to report their agreed upon quotas for 2010.

More information

The CITES export quotas for 2010-2011 can be accessed here.

ICTSD Reporting. “Wild Caspian Caviar Returns.” NEW YORK TIMES 27 July 2010. “Caviar producers to resume exports.” PRESS TV, 25 July 2010.  ”Caviar producers to restart wild caviar exports.” TELEGRAPH, 24 July 2010. “Wild Caspian Caviar Return.” 27 July 2010. “Beluga Sturgeon in Caspian Sea Reclassified as ‘Critically Endangered.’” SCIENCE DAILY. 22 March 2010.

Farmers are allowed to grow only two strains of GM crops in the EU: Monsanto’s MON 810 strain of maize, which was authorised in 1998, and a GM starch potato, known as the “Amflora” potato, which was approved for cultivation and industrial processing in March of this year (see Bridges Trade BioRes, 19 March 2010).

However, the European Commission has approved a number of GM crops for feed or food uses, including one strain of sugar beet, three of soybean, three of oilseed-rape, six cotton varieties, and 17 strains of maize.

The approval of the six new maize varieties is the result of a decision taken by the Commission after member states failed to return majority decisions either for or against the approval. Each of the six GM maize varieties in question has received a positive safety assessment from the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA).

EU member states are deeply divided over GM products. Critics of GM goods emphasise that the long-term impact of genetic modification for human and environmental health is unknown.

Member states Austria, Bulgaria, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Ireland and Luxembourg have banned the cultivation of GM seeds (see Bridges Trade BioRes, 1 May 2009), while the Czech Republic, the Netherlands, and the United Kingdom are open to allowing their farmers to grow the altered crops.

In a recent proposal, the Commission suggested that each of the bloc’s member states should be allowed to decide for themselves whether to allow the cultivation of GM crops within their borders. Before states could ban or approve them, however, any strains would need to undergo a safety assessment by European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) and receive EU approval (see Bridges Trade BioRes, 23 July 2010).

Of the approvals announced this week, one renewed a previous decision on Syngenta’s insect-resistant Bt11 maize that expired in 2007, while the other five were for stacked maize varieties, which combine insect and herbicide resistance. One of those strains is from Sygenta, two were jointly developed by DuPont and Dow AgroSciences, and two are from Monsanto.

Exporters of GM crops outside the EU are likely to increase their pressure on the EU to open its markets to imports of the altered crops. The EU has a zero-tolerance policy on unapproved GM material in imports. Just last year, Europe’s supply chains of animal feed were disrupted when GM-tainted shipments of feed from the US were turned back at the EU border.

The US has long been critical of the EU’s anti-GM position, arguing that it is not in line with Europe’s commitments at the World Trade Organization.

This week the American Farm Bureau Federation, the largest and strongest farmers’ association in the United States, urged the administration of US President Barack Obama to impose sanctions on the EU, saying that the 27-nation bloc has not complied with a 2006 WTO ruling against its “de facto moratorium” on approving new varieties of GM crops for cultivation.

ICTSD reporting; “EC approves six GM corn varieties for food and feed,” FOODnavigator.com, 30 July 2010; “Commission proposes letting member states decide on GM cultivation,” FoodQualitynews.com, 15 July 2010; “EU Commission authorizes six GM maize for food and feed use,” Aquafeed.com, 2 August 2010; “EU’s new approach to the cultivation of GMOs- guide,” eubusiness.com, 13 July 2010.

In the time leading up to the release of the audit, which is expected next week, Greenpeace says it used aerial monitoring and field investigations in two Sinar Mas controlled concessions to document recent clearance of deep peat and UNEP-identified orangutan habitat in West Kalimantan on the east side of Indonesian Borneo.

“We’ve caught Sinar Mas red-handed destroying valuable rainforests, and breaching the limited promises it has made to clean up its act,” said Bustar Maitar, Greenpeace forest campaigner.

For its part, Sinar Mas denies the allegations and claims that it has complied with Indonesian law. In a statement, PT SMART, a subsidiary of Sinar Mas, said all of its concession areas were “located on degraded land, based on government concessions and in accordance to national laws and regulations.”

Indonesian palm oil producers have been under pressure to clean up industry practices recently following several allegations of forest clearing in protected areas. In February of this year, Unilever, the consumer products conglomerate, cancelled contracts with palm oil producers in Indonesia after investigations by Greenpeace and the BBC revealed that they were engaged in illegally clearing forests (see Bridges Trade BioRes, 5 March 2010).

Two months prior to the BBC documentary incident, Unilever blacklisted PT SMART based on what it called “unsustainable practices.” Greenpeace is urging other large multinationals, such as Cargill and Wal-Mart, to follow suit.

“Until this group changes course, other businesses should have nothing to do with Sinar Mas,” said Maitar.

Deforestation now accounts for more than 80 percent of Indonesia’s greenhouse gas emissions and one-fifth of total greenhouse gas emissions worldwide. In an effort to help the country curb deforestation, Norway agreed to contribute up to US$1 billion towards forest conservation in May of this year. The Indonesia-Norway partnership to cut emissions is part of the UN’s Reduced Emissions from Deforestation and Degradation (REDD) strategy, that would make stored carbon dioxide in tropical forests a commodity that can be bought and sold on the global market.

However, according to Maitar, “millions of hectares of forests - including hundreds of thousands of hectares under Sinar Mas control - are not part of the deal with Norway.” The only way to reduce Indonesia’s GHG emissions, activists say, is for President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono to place a moratorium on all forest destruction.

Coming up in the next five weeks (6 August - 10 September)

9-10 August, Phnom Penh, Cambodia. INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON MANAGING FOREST RESOURCES FOR MULTIPLE ECOSYSTEM SERVICES UNDER ROBUST AND FRAGILE ENVIRONMENTS. This conference brings together international and local academia, policy makers, representatives of forest communities, donors, NGOs, and companies to advance the management of forest ecosystems. The main objective is to discuss the timely important topics on avoiding deforestation and forest degradation, assessing forest ecosystem services and managing forest resources in the robust and fragile environments with national and international scholars, policy makers, and forestry practitioners. The number of participants is limited to 100 people and priority is given to participants based in Cambodia or in its neighbouring countries. For more information visit the conference website.

11-13 August, Panama City, Panama. LATIN AMERICAN AND CARIBBEAN INDIGENOUS AND LOCAL COMMUNITY CAPACITY-BUILDING WORKSHOP ON THE CBD. This workshop will address the general strategic considerations regarding the upcoming Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity that will be held in Nagoya this October. Specifically, the workshop aims to address Article 8(j) of the Convention, including issues related to traditional knowledge protection and access and benefit sharing of genetic resources. The workshop targets the members of indigenous and local communities and aims to build capacity and awareness regarding issues that will be addressed at the COP 10 in Nagoya. For more information and to register for this workshop visit the CBD website.

15-27 August, Joensuu, Finland. UNEP COURSE ON MULTILATERAL ENVIRONMENTAL AGREEMENTS. The University of Eastern Finland (UEF) and the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) are jointly organising a high profile two-week course on multilateral environmental agreements (MEAs). The Course transfers past experience in the field of international environmental law to current and future negotiators of MEAs. The course is intended for experienced government officials engaged in international environmental negotiations. To register, visit the course website.

16-20 August 2010, Fortaleza, Brazil. SECOND INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON CLIMATE, SUSTAINABILITY, AND DEVELOPMENT IN SEMI-ARID REGIONS - ICID 2010. With the goal of promoting secure and sustainable development in the semi-arid regions of the world, ICID 2010 aims to bring together public policy makers, scientists, and members of civil society. Organisers of the event hope to identify and focus action on challenges and opportunities for a better future in the world’s arid and semi-arid regions. The conference will generate, publish, and present recommendations to guide global, regional, national and local analysis and policies aimed at reducing vulnerability and improving the lives of the people of dry lands around the world. For more information see the conference website.

18-20 August, London, UK. ECOHEALTH 2010. This conference will bring together academic institutions, government bodies and civil society groups to discuss jointly the major challenges facing people, wildlife, and ecosystems internationally in 2010 and the future. Placing major emphasis on the perspectives of peoples most vulnerable to the harms of ecosystem destruction, including indigenous peoples, women, and young people, the three main themes for the conference are: urban ecohealth; biodiversity and ecohealth; and sustainability and future priorities for ecohealth. For more information visit the conference website.

22-25 August 2010, Oldenburg and Bremen, Germany. ADVANCING SUSTAINABILITY IN A TIME OF CRISIS. The heart of this 11th Biennial Conference of the International Society of Ecological Economics is the stress and exploitation of the Earth’s ecological systems, the loss of biodiversity, and climate change. Problems such as these were intensified by the collapse of the global financial system. By uniting scientists, practitioners, and decision makers from various fields, this conference seeks to integrate ecological and social concerns into economic analyses and practical solutions. Main themes for this event include the causes of, and adaptation to, climate change, renewable energy, biodiversity and ecosystem services, land use and restoration, sustainable development, governance and public policy, green business, and the broadening of ecological economics.  For more information visit the conference website.

23-28 August, Seoul, Korea. XXIII WORLD CONGRESS OF THE INTERNATIONAL UNION OF FOREST RESEARCH ORGANIZATIONS (IUFRO). This Congress, held every four to five years, will draw professionals and scientists in all fields of forestry from all over the world. Speakers representing government policy makers, academic scholars, and researchers from universities and institutions will present and discuss the latest innovation on various themes, such as forest and climate change, biodiversity conservation and sustainable use of forest resources, forest environmental services, and Asia’s forest for the future, among others. For further information, visit the IUFRO World Congress website.

25-27 August, City of Belem, Brazil. SECOND ROUNDTABLE ON SUSTAINABLE PALM OIL LATIN AMERICA CONFERENCE. This roundtable will focus on discussing the evolving market for sustainable palm oil, specifically in Latin America. The roundtable will give Latin American firms the opportunity to learn what others around the world are doing in terms of planting, marketing and other sustainable practices. Palm oil stakeholders in attendance include growers, producers, processors, financial institutions, supermarkets, social and environmental NGOs, researchers, teachers and students. For more information or to register visit the RSPO website.

31 August - 3 September, Oaxaca, Mexico. WORKSHOP ON FOREST GOVERNANCE, DECENTRALISATION AND REDD IN LATIN AMERICA. The Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR) and the UN Forum on Forests (UNFF), with a number of government collaborators, are organising this workshop with participants from government, development and environmental NGOs and local community and indigenous peoples representatives to discuss regional perspectives on REDD and develop a better understanding of how decentralisation and forest governance contribute to sustainable management of forests. The results are expected to feed into the 9th session of the UN Forum on Forests. For more information or to sign up visit the workshop website.

1-3 September, Geneva, Switzerland. INFORMAL MEETING OF CLIMATE MINISTERS. This meeting, co-organized by the Governments of Switzerland and Mexico, will help prepare for the 16th session of the Conference of the Parties to the UNFCCC scheduled to take place in Cancun, Mexico, at the end of 2010. Around 30 countries from all continents and negotiating groups will be invited to Geneva. The key issue to be addressed under the heading of long-term financing is how the funds for climate change mitigation and adaptation should be mobilised, managed and allocated from 2020 onwards. For more information visit the meeting website.

2-3 September, Santiago (Region Metropolitana), Chile. SEMINAR ON THE VULNERABILITY OF INTERNATIONAL TRADE TO THE CARBON FOOTPRINT. This seminar, hosted by the UN Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean (ECLAC), will examine the possible impacts on Latin American and Caribbean trade of efforts to assess the “carbon footprint” of goods and services. For more information visit the ECLAC website.

5-11 September. Stockholm, Sweden. WORLD WATER WEEK. The 20th anniversary of World Water Week will be hosted by the Stockholm International Water Institute. The programme will include plenaries, workshops, seminars, side events and award ceremonies related to the theme: “The Water Quality Challenge - Prevention, Wise Use and Abatement.” Organisers say the event will help deepen the understanding of, stimulate ideas on, and engage the water community around the challenges related to water quality. For more information, view this event website.

8-9 September. Mexico City, Mexico. CARBON MARKETS & CLIMATE FINANCE IN MEXICO AND CENTRAL AMERICA. This conference will focus on accelerating Mexico and Central America’s participation in global carbon markets. This conference is the second in a series of the Green Power Conferences focused on Mexico and Central America. This event will create a networking platform for the Mexican and Central American carbon market industry, policy makers and potential investors to examine strategies for the market as well as investment options and regional policy movements. For more information visit the conference website.

Other Upcoming Events

14 September, Montreal, Canada. HIGH-LEVEL DIALOGUE ON FOSTERING INVESTMENT IN ELECTRICITY GENERATION IN CENTRAL AND EASTERN EUROPE AND CENTRAL ASIA. This meeting, hosted by the UN Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE) Secretariat, the World Energy Council and the e8 organisation, will discuss key issues and initial direction for the project ‘Fostering investment in advanced fossil fuel technologies for climate change mitigation and sustainable development in countries with economies in transition.’ Panel discussions will include key issues such as market, technological and cost developments, selected investment trends, evolving regulation and possible future trends. Delegates from central and eastern European and central Asian countries will discuss energy investment with CEOs from leading electricity companies. For more information on this event visit the UNECE website.

14-30 September, New York City, USA. SIXTY-FIFTH SESSION OF THE UNITED NATIONS GENERAL ASSEMBLY. The 65th session of the United Nations General Assembly will open on 14 September and the General Debate will take place from 23-25 September and 27-30 September. A high-level Plenary Meeting on the Millennium Development Goals will be held on 20-22 September. Included in the provisional agenda are issues related to biodiversity and the launch of the 2011 UN Decade for Deserts and the Fight against Desertification. For more information visit the UN website.

15-16 September, Paris, France. IEA WORKSHOP ON SUSTAINABLE FEEDSTOCK SUPPLY FOR BIOENERGY AND BIOFUELS. The international Energy Agency (IEA) is holding a workshop on bioenergy and biofuels feedstocks relating specifically to biomass and land availability, international biomass trade, supply costs and sustainability-related topics. The workshop’s sessions will focus, inter alia, on assessing biomass potential and identifying knowledge gaps, identifying steps necessary to ensure sustainability of supply, and furthering public-private-partnerships and international cooperation on ensuring sustainable production. For more information visit the event website.

17-19 September, New Haven, US. UNITAR-YALE CONFERENCE ON CLIMATE CHANGE GOVERNANCE. This conference is organized by the UN Institute for Training and Research (UNITAR) and Yale University on the theme of “Strengthening Institutions to Address Climate Change and Advance a Green Economy.” The Conference aims to examine the role of institutional structures and decision-making procedures in fostering or impeding low carbon and climate resilient development. Anticipated outcomes of the conference include a research agenda and enhanced knowledge sharing to better understand the openness, transparency, accountability and effectiveness of institutions engaged in action to address climate change. For more information visit the conference website.

18-21 September, Montreal, Canada. INTERREGIONAL NEGOTIATING GROUP (ING) OF THE AD HOC OPEN-ENDED WORKING GROUP ON ACCESS AND BENEFIT-SHARING (ABS). This meeting will continue the negotiations on an international regime for access and benefit sharing under the Convention on Biological Diversity. The meeting aims to prepare a text on the international regime for presentation at the October Conference of the Parties of the CBD in Nagoya. For more information visit the CBD website.

20-24 September, Bergen, Norway. NORTH-EAST ATLANTIC ENVIRONMENT SUMMIT. This summit, hosted by the Norwegian Ministry of the Environment, will gather Ministers and representatives from the 16 Contracting Parties to the OSPAR Commission and delegates from other countries bordering the North Atlantic (Canada and the US) with the aim of taking collective action on pertinent issues related to the future of the North Atlantic marine environment. Specifically, the summit plans to address implementing the EC Marine Strategy Framework Directive, establishing a well-managed network of marine protected areas (MPAs) and responding to the challenges of increase carbon dioxide on the marine environment. The summit will launch the Quality Status Report 2010, which provides an assessment of the quality status of the North-East Atlantic. For more information visit the meeting website.

20-21 September, Paris, France. TENTH ANNUAL WORKSHOP ON GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSION TRADING. The international Energy Agency (IEA), the International Emissions Trading Association (IETA) and the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) will host the tenth annual emissions trading workshop which provides an opportunity for government, business and various stakeholders to discuss some of the key issues relating to national and international carbon markets and climate policy. This year’s workshop will cover topics relevant to the future of global carbon markets post-COP 15, including scaled-up and new market mechanisms, regional linkages, carbon market oversight, and accounting and verification. As in previous years, the workshop will also provide an opportunity to discuss advances in various national GHG markets, as well as carbon market developments over the past year. For more information visit the event website.

19 October, Paris, France. BUSINESS AND BIODIVERSITY SYMPOSIUM. This symposium, organised by Enterprises pour l’Environment (EpE) and the World Business Council for Sustainable Development, aims to demonstrate business commitment to biodiversity. The symposium will present successful business cases and address the conditions of compatibility between economic development and the preservation of biodiversity, with interventions by business leaders and international experts on the subject. Three roundtables, organised by partner organisations, will cover topics such as changes in business models, corporate philanthropy and measuring biodiversity. With the presence of European Commissioner for the Environment, Janez Potocnik and representatives of the French Minister of Ecology, Energy, Sustainable Development and the Sea, this event aims to generate European support for the upcoming Convention on Biological Diversity COP 10 to be held in Nagoya at the end of October. For more information visit the event website.

4-8 October, Rome, Italy. TWENTIETH SESSION OF THE COMMITTEE ON FORESTRY - SECOND WORLD FOREST WEEK. The Committee on Forestry (COFO) and the World Forest Week will be held in conjunction at the Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) headquarters in Rome, Italy. World Forest Week will consist of a series of meetings and events sponsored by FAO and its partner organisations and institutions. The events will be organised around the key topics of the COFO and intend to shed more light on key issues and lead to more detailed discussions. The University of Tuscia (Italy) and FAO, with the support of the International Union of Forest Research Organisations (IUFRO) will organise a conference on “Emerging Economic Mechanisms: Implications for Forest-Related Policies and Sector Governance.” Additionally, there will be two panel discussions on forest governance and on REDD-plus with participation from heads of forestry and lead scientists. The event aims to remove traditional boundaries and foster a continued science-policy dialogue. For more information or to register for the event visit the FAO website.

9-10 November, London, UK. CLIMATE FINANCE 2010 & THE TENTH ANNUAL CARBON FINANCE 2010 CONFERENCE. This event aims to showcase innovative tools being developed to encourage funding for global low-carbon development. Carbon markets as well as other approaches to deliver public and private sector finance on a large scale will be addressed. The proposed agenda will include topics such as leveraging public sector funding, climate change and the bond market, climate finance and green stimulus packages, voluntary carbon markets among other topics. For more information or to register visit the conference website.

8-11 November, Jakarta, Indonesia. EIGHTH ANNUAL ROUNDTBLE MEETING ON SUSTAINABLE PALM OIL (RSPO). The 8th annual meeting of RSPO - RT8 - will be held in conjunction with the 7th Annual General Assembly of RSPO members. The theme for the 2010 meeting is “RSPO is also for Smallholders” and the aim is to come out of the 2010 meeting with a certification for smallholder sustainable palm oil production. The RT8 hopes begin the process of promoting and rewarding smallholder sustainable palm oil production. The meeting will include open interactive sessions, plenary sessions by experts in the field and updates on the progress and activities in RSPO. For more information or to register visit the RSPO website.

OUR BALANCING ACT - THE REAL VALUE OF ECOSYSTEMS. By Denis Slieker and Jos van Assendelft, July 2010. The book emphasises the need to put a monetary value on the services provided by forests and other ecosystems (e.g., forests) in order to provide a business case against unsustainable conversion of naturally functioning ecosystems. The ecosystem services that need to be priced include biodiversity, carbon sequestration, water purification and supply, food supply and more. The questions the book addresses are: What are we really losing when we continue to use ecosystems unsustainably? Can ecosystems be regarded as ‘production facilities’ and ecosystem services as their ‘products’ that have value on the world market? Is it possible to create a business case for the conservation of ecosystems, so that they can keep providing the essential ecosystem services? In addition to addressing these questions, the book includes contributions from Willem Ferwerda, the Director of IUCN Committee of the Netherlands and Frederic Kizza, the Senior Warden of the Ugandan Wildlife Authority. The book can be purchased from the Forest Enterprise Foundation, a non-profit organisation focusing on ecosystem conservation.

PROTECTING BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY: THE EFFECTIVENESS OF ACCESS AND BENEFIT-SHARING REGIMES. by Carmen Richerzhagen, German Development Institute, July 2010. This book addresses the basic principles of genetic resources in regards to access and benefit sharing (ABS) and outlines the economic framework of the ABS concept. It then analyses critical factors to examine the effectiveness of ABS. Finally the book takes a closer look at how both provider and user countries implement ABS regulations now and in the future under an international regime for ABS. Richerzhagen utilises empirical findings of three case studies of biodiversity-providing countries - Costa Rica, the Philippines and Ethiopia - and one case study of a community of user countries, the European Union (EU) to examine the effectiveness of ABS at achieving its own objectives of furthering biodiversity conservation. This book can be purchased on the publisher’s website.

CONFLICT-SENSITIVE CONSERVATION - NEW WEBSITE. Launched and managed by the International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD), this new website aims to help conservationists minimise the risks of their actions creating or exacerbating conflict and maximise the opportunities for conflict prevention and peace building. Conflict-sensitive conservation (CSC) emerged from Conserving the Peace project, an initiative launched in 2005by IISD. The website contains resources on conflict-sensitive conservation, including information on making organisations and conservation work more conflict-sensitive. An extensive list of resources and publications is also available at the new website.

WORLD ATLAS OF MANGROVES. Published by Earthscan as an output of a joint project implemented since 2005 by the International Tropical Timber Organisation, the International Society of Mangrove Ecosystems, the Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations, the UN Environment Programme-World Conservation Monitoring Centre, the UN Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation - Man and Biosphere, the UN University-Institute for Water Environment and Health, and the Nature Conservancy. This updated version of the World Atlas of Mangroves project finds that about one-fifth of all mangroves are thought to have been lost since 1980. The authors warn that, although losses are slowing at 0.7 percent a year, further destruction due to shrimp farming and coastal development will cause significant economic and ecological decline. The Atlas reports that studies estimate that mangroves generate between US$2,000-9,000 per hectare annually. It also underscores the link between these coastal forests and economically-important services from flood defences and fish nurseries to carbon storage to combat climate change. To access the Atlas visit the UNEP website.

THE WORLD ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL SURVEY (WESS). Edited by the United Nations Development Policy and Analysis Division. This report indicates that many of the global crises in recent years - such as the food, fuel and financial crises - are to a large extent due to major systemic failures in the global economy and weaknesses in the mechanisms for global governance. The report suggests that a sustainable rebalancing of the global economy requires closer coordination across the trading system, the new regime for international financial regulation, the global reserve system and the mechanisms for mobilising and channelling development finance and climate funding. The report recommends that the international community consider establishing a global economic coordination mechanism that goes well beyond the Group of 20 (G20). Access to the full report is available online.