On 17th November, the International Centre for Trade and Sustainable Development (ICTSD) and International Institute of Sustainable Development (IISD) will jointly host a team of senior policy advisors organized by Development Research Centre of the State Council (DRC, China) for a discussion with the Geneva community on the international and domestic political economic factors that influence China’s trade strategy, impacts of both regulatory and non regulatory standards, and possible steps that China can take to enhance its sustainability.

Registration is required.

Please send your name, title/organization, and full contact information by the 10th of November 2008 to Miss Fei CHEN at fchen@ictsd.ch or fax: 0041 22 917 80 93.

The ICTSD Geneva China Dialogue is an annual event that brings together representatives from international institutions, governments, business and civil society from China and around the world, to explore issues related to China, trade and sustainable development. It is part of the ICTSD China Initiative which aims to promote a better understanding of China’s role in global economic governance through dialogues and research.

This 2008 meeting will focus on China’s contribution to the economic architecture of a global agreement on climate change , in the process towards the 15th Conference of the Parties to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change in 2009 in Copenhagen. China is at the centre of a range of concerns related to the trade and climate change negotiations, particular with respect to the distribution of the economic costs and gains from climate change mitigation and adaptation.

While recognising the UNFCCC principle of common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities, China’s participation in global efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions is regarded by many as necessary, for global cooperative action on climate change to achieve the desired objectives. China is also at the centre of worries among policy-makers and industry in industrialised countries, about potential loss of competitiveness in their trade-exposed sectors, in the absence of “comparable action” in large developing countries such as China.

On the other hand, there is agreement in the Bali Action Plan, that in order for developing countries such as China to effectively contribute to global efforts on climate change, they will need support in particular on technology and financing. Moreover, achieving sustainable development objectives, including through trade-led growth, remains a legitimate objective of developing countries that is recognised and supported by WTO Members and Parties to the UNFCCC.

Key questions to be addressed in the Geneva China Dialogue include:
• What are the global trade and climate context in which China performs?

• What are the expectations of the international community for China’s responsibility in maintaining global economic and trade stability and fostering a multilateral agreement on climate change?

• How can China contribute to achieving successful outcomes under the Doha round of trade negotiations and the UNFCCC negotiations on climate change?

• What trade-related incentives and enabling conditions can contribute to enhancing the capacity of developing countries such as China to undertake national appropriate mitigation actions and pursue adaptation efforts?

• How can trade-related competitiveness concerns be addressed in an effective and fair manner, taking into account principles underlying both the trade and climate change regimes?

The dialogue will be a good platform for those who are interested on these issues, from international organizations, policymakers, negotiators, private sectors, business associations, civil society organizations, media, universities as well as research institutions.

Seats are limited. Please kindly register your participation with your name, title/organization, full contact information, by the 5th November 2008, to Ms. Guan at china@ictsd.ch or by telephone (+41)-22 917 8838 / fax (+41) 22 917 8093. You can also register at Website www.ictsd.org or mail or Ms Guan at ICTSD, 7 ch. de Balexert, 1219 Geneva, Switzerland.

Venue:

The Geneva China Dialogue 2008 will be held at the World Meteorological Organization, Address: 7bis,avenue de la Paix, CH-1211 Geneva 2, Switzerland
Tel.: + 41 (0) 22 730 81 11 Fax: + 41 (0) 22 730 81 81

More information about the conference venue including transportation and map, please visit: http://www.wmo.int/pages/visitors/index_en.html

全球为解决气候变化问题所付诸的努力要求从根本上对我们的经济体和能源使用方式进行改革。现阶段，《联合国气候变化框架公约（UNFCCC）》下的谈判旨在为今后的政策改革寻求基础，要求各个国家、企业界和市民社会协调一致，共同努力。未来的技术创新及相应管理框架的创新将是成功的关键。

在此背景下，随着哥本哈根会议（2009年12月）之前的各项谈判日渐加速，与贸易相关的议题已成为各方讨论和协商的主要内容。很多人相信，设计一套有效的气候变化制度，必须动用贸易政策工具。那么哪些贸易政策工具是最优选择？这些工具是否需要被纳入全球气候变化制度中？如果需要，怎么做最好？这些都是相关的政策集团必须解决的问题。同时，各政策集团还需要考虑，是否还有其它的方法让贸易政策和现有的体制被用来支持人们为缓解和适应气候变化所付出的努力。另外，未来气候变化制度中的某些议题将对贸易产生直接影响，因此需要我们的深入理解和事前充分准备。为帮助应对这一挑战，本报告对最为重要和紧迫的政策联动问题进行了研究，对气候变化和贸易相关的新老问题作出了探讨。

本报告首先关注竞争力问题。竞争力问题是现阶段气候变化和贸易谈判的核心。有些国家担心，如果在气候变化问题上作出承诺，将使其各个行业（至少是能源和碳密集行业）在全球市场竞争中处于不利地位。针对这个说法，本报告从环境、社会和经济三个角度作了分析。随后，报告还提及了各国对气候变化所作出的回应，例如对进口产品征取“碳税”或起草国际行业间协议。

报告的第二部分探讨了贸易中的“隐含碳”（‘embodied’ carbon）概念。“隐含碳”指的是产品生产过程中的碳排放。在《联合国气候变化框架公约》的国家碳排放清单上，这记入生产国的排放，而非消费国的排放。报告随后讨论了“碳标签”，这是一个处于在早期发展阶段的概念和做法，能够为消费者提供产品在贸易周期中的碳排放信息。报告指出了政策制定者所面临的主要挑战，重点介绍了发展中国家的相关经历，碳标签和其他所谓的“非关税壁垒”一直影响着发展中国家的产品出口。

清洁能源技术在全球的迅速推广是缓解气候变化的关键。报告的第三部分讨论了这一领域的贸易相关问题：第一，是否有可能在目前的WTO多哈回合中，降低环境产品和服务的关税？第二，在促进技术转移方面，贸易和贸易规则如何发挥更大的作用？在这里，报告集中讨论了低碳和减排技术的知识产权问题，这个问题目前在谈判中已被“政治化”。

报告的第四部分简要讨论了能源和贸易问题，在气候变化议题下，两者本身具有交叉性。

报告的第五部分聚焦贸易和土地利用、土地利用变化和林业（LULUCF）之间纷繁复杂的联系。这部分包括对生物然料争议主要问题的简要总结。这个棘手的问题还须进一步探究。

到目前为止，大部分气候政策制定者一向不关心贸易的一个具体细节问题——货物的物理运输，即通过水路、陆路和航运把货物运输到世界各地。报告的第六部分概述了这一领域目前的各项讨论，以及这些讨论对贸易与缓解气候变化存在的潜在间接影响。

最后，报告的第七部分对气候变化适应和贸易之间的联系作了“探索性总结”。还需作更多的工作，才能阐明并探索出这一领域内政策干预的潜在需求。

1. 竞争力：在一个碳排放受限制的世界里

国际竞争力和贸易一直是气候变化多边谈判中的一项重要内容。不过，直到最近这项讨论才趋于公开并蒙上了政治色彩。碳密集产业的重新选址，碳泄露，边境碳壁垒，贸易消费品的隐含碳，以及气候变化对全球农产品和工业产品运输的影响等问题已成为气候变化谈判专家们面对的新话题。

显然，缓解气候变化需要付出代价。这代价具体是什么，在不同的政策环境下如何在各国、各部门之间分摊，情况并不明朗。气候变化谈判的核心自然是代价的国际分摊。全球经济一体化使得这个问题更加复杂，例如，供应链已经跨越了国家界限。

从经济、社会和环境的角度看“碳泄露”和竞争力问题

将承担严格减排义务的国家担心，这可能会影响其能源和碳密集产业的国际竞争力。尽管如此，争论的焦点却主要集中在没有减排义务的国家目前进行的或将要进行的行业重新选址产生的经济和社会影响上。另外，在生产工艺水平低下的国家，行业重新选址可能会导致同等数量产品的生产，带来更高的总体碳排放量。这就是环境角度的碳泄露：相同产量下的更高污染。

尽管情况尚未明朗，这些问题已经变得高度政治化。有人怀疑，严重的碳泄露正在发生，其中一个重要原因就是发达国家大部分的高能耗钢铁和水泥产品仍在其国内生产。有经济学家认为，贸易能够促进生产效率，降低总体的温室气体排放量。

边境调节税是否正当？

在碳排放受限制的经济体，企业已经作出了反应，它们越来越多地转向钢铁等领域内的特定高价值产品，但是这些企业同时要求制定法律，通过与碳排放有关的“竞争力条款”，对进口产品强制征收“碳补偿津贴”或边境调节税。

美国的立法草案包含有针对中国及其他没有减排义务的发展中国家的“碳壁垒”条款。在欧洲，边境措施（至少目前）并不在气候和能源立法的草案中。但是，边境措施一直是争议的内容之一。欧洲议会呼吁对 “搭便车”的国家（主要指美国）采取边境措施已有很多年了。

此类边境措施具有高度的争议性，因为它们不利于寻求一个“兼容并蓄”的解决方法。在世贸组织中，边境措施是否合法决不是一件简单的事情。

行业间协议起何作用？

目前，全球的行业间协议再度引起人们关注，因为此类协议可能有助于解决某些全球竞争力事宜。这些行业间的协议涵盖能源密集型和贸易比重高的行业，例如钢铁、铝、纸类产品、水泥和农药等。日本在G8中提出一项举措，建议为八国的能源密集型行业设定一个共同的技术指标，履行气候变化方面的承诺。发展中国家是否作出这种承诺则是自愿性质的。

但是，行业间的协议并不是一个一刀切的解决办法。发展中国家已经警惕地提出，这可能会带来新的标准和义务，从而妨碍发展中国家的工业发展和出口。

的确，根据“共同而有区别的责任”原则，发展中国家已经表示，所有有可能影响其发展前景的竞争力议题在《联合国气候变化框架共约》下都是没有法律依据的。

2. 贸易中的“隐含”碳：从政治到碳标签和新的碳排放清单

现在有确凿的证据显示，大气层吸收人类活动产生的特定种类气体的能力是有限的。人类活动素来不考虑到大气层的使用或者对大气层会有什么影响。如果政策能够有效缓解气候变化，那么此类成本的内部化是必须的。在此情况下，评估和解决国际贸易货物的相关碳排放量成为了一个需重点关注的问题。的确，确定各国减排行为的责任绝非易事，是否只从生产源头计算碳排放量，还是把一个产品和服务的生命周期中的各个环节——生产、运输、消费、废弃等——所释放的温室气体皆计算在内？如果是后者，那么在这种国际大生产和贸易网络流通极其复杂的今天，温室气体排放的归属问题又该如何？

近来，一些研究显示，中国有近四分之一的碳排放来自于出口产品的生产，而这些产品往往出口到不再从事相关产品制造的发达国家。

在此特例中，消费国被指控“洗碳”——将高污染的行业外包给生产国来发展本国经济。评论家强调消费国（特别是发达国家）对气候变化首先采取有力措施的必要性，这不仅是这些国家在历史上排放二氧化碳所需要承担的责任，更是他们为其进口商品中的“隐含”碳造成温室气体排放所应承担的责任。事实上，一些生产和出口国已经表示要重新确定减排责任，因为他们的部分温室气体排放和发达国家的消费紧密相连。

碳计算和碳标签

碳排放清单针对各个国家，并由其自主实施。也许有一天，每一件贸易产品都有自己独有的碳护照，允许碳排放责任的跨境转移。然而，从碳排放角度对贸易产品生命周期的初步分析已经表明，这个过程有多复杂和成本有多高。

一些早期的碳标签体系是以私人部门的产品周期分析为基础的，只涵盖了少量产品，并主要集中在农产品之上，因为农产品的加工过程比工业品简单，便于分析。另外，一些跨国公司已开始使用碳足迹来确认在他们的供应链中的碳集中排放区域，并针对这些区域采取减排措施。

自愿性碳标签体系在未来的作用可能会越来越大，让消费者自身选择减少自己的碳足迹。然而，如果这些体系在设计上存在问题，带来的风险也是巨大的。对标签初步的简单尝试是超市里面空运新鲜产品上的飞机标签，但最终并不利于某些最贫困和弱势国家。北半球冬季时，一些发展中国家通过空运新鲜产品成功占领发达国家中的高价值缝隙市场。这些标签仅仅标识了部分（运输过程中的）碳足迹，忽略了产品其他过程的碳排放。总的来说，在温暖气候地带的出口国比其他发达国家更注重产品的碳排放情况，因为其他发达国家会受商业目的驱使，在温室中使用大量碳集中肥料生产非时令蔬菜。

碳标签体系和标准可能成为非关税壁垒

碳标签体系为发展中国家带来了机遇和挑战。未来的标签体系应能够兼顾数据的准确性和有用性，并且简单、透明，交易成本低，小国家和企业都能承担。

发展中国家对私人部门的标签体系普遍疑虑重重，因为他们认为发展中国家的情况并没有被这些体系考虑在内。虽然私人部门的标签体系会损害他们的出口利益，但这些发展中国家却没有什么回旋余地，因为管理标准和技术规范的国际贸易规则，即世贸组织《技术性贸易壁垒协议》只能限制其成员国，而不能规范私人组织。

在制定与贸易相关的、促使能源效率的标签体系以及实施强制性或自愿性标准的领域，此类讨论也很热门。这些体系为正面意义的产品差异化和市场机遇创造了条件。另一方面，很多生产国担忧，碳标签和标准会成为市场准入的障碍。他们把这种新兴的“非关税壁垒”视为潜在的市场准入障碍和绿色贸易保护主义。

3. 技术：机会和限制

清洁能源技术的迅速推广将是缓解气候变化的关键。技术的推广是前所未有的要求，所有的管道都应被利用，其中推动产品和技术在全球范围有效移动的途径就是贸易。

为环境货物和服务设标签

发达国家的生产商和出口商在世贸组织提出议案，要求挑选出环保技术，并从中选出气候友好技术，要求各国降低关税壁垒帮助这些技术的推广。然而，很多发展中国家在阶段多哈贸易回合下并不愿意作出这样的一揽子承诺，因为一旦作出这样的承诺，所有的部门都将被涵盖其内，但是真正的气候友好产品仅占很少比例。这些国家担心，他们可能在无意中终止了更多产品的自由化进程，而不仅仅是环境相关产品。他们还为他们的中小型企业（SMEs）及以后生产同类产品公司的竞争问题感到担忧。然而，情况正在发生日新月异的变化，新兴经济体成长快速，正向清洁能源技术市场的新生产商和出口商迈进。

技术转移

技术的发展和转移已经成为“后京都”时代气候变化制度的基本问题。缓解和适应气候变化的部分技术已得到认可。这些技术包括：观察和监督气候变化，缓解气候变化（如，能源效率和可再生能源技术，节能运输技术，节能省材料建筑技术，农产品和动物农作低排放技术等等），适应性技术（如，节水，凝水和水资源再利用技术，农业生态技术，疾病和虫害控制技术，抗洪、防旱、防海拔上升、控制农业灾害以及土壤沙漠化控制技术等等）。

一些技术准入壁垒已得到识别。虽然大部分技术转移从私人部门转移，但是法律和政策手段在其中仍起着重要的作用。贸易自由化从本质上来说是并不能有效驱动知识和技术的推广，特别是在发展中国家、在缓解和适应气候变化的情况下。一些经济和贸易有关的机制为促进气候相关创新和技术转移的多边行动提供了“有利环境”。

知识产权和创新

在气候变化的谈判中，知识产权问题的重要性凸现。长久以来，知识产权一直是促进创新和推广新观念、新技术的工具。然而，在某些情况下，过度的保护知识产权实际上不利于未来的研究和发展，也为社会公众获取受保护知识造成了障碍。因此，如何平衡专利和气候相关技术准入亟待解决。

知识产权并非一定是气候变化（环保）技术的瓶颈。这种情况会随着新技术的发展而得到改善，同时各行各业也应该对此有更充分地理解。《蒙特利尔议定书》规定，技术基金包括花钱购买必要的许可证费。

有人提议，国家应该能够对气候变化技术颁发强制许可证，这意味着他们可以单边允许本国企业模仿特定的技术，而无须遵循专利产品的正常程序。关于知识产权的讨论也可被看成是那些不愿达成谈判成果的国家的拖延战术。

技术问题对大部分拥有高科技的发达国家尤为重要，因为这些发达国家为了将本国经济成功引向低碳时代，把大部分的研发力量都投入到了生态创新中。他们希望本国经济能更多地以这些行业为基础，其发展重点已向原先的自然资源密集型行业转向了服务业和高科技行业。

越来越多的人已经意识到，不论在知识产权体系内外，现存的创新结构和活动都可能并且应该得到进一步发展。初步的举措包括一项气候技术国际“推广创新”模式和策略。为清洁能源技术作出创新的应得到褒奖。

4. 能源是关键

气候变化政策目标在于引领各国朝着高能效、低碳的未来发展。能源效率是干预能源利用最具成本效益的方法之一。清洁能源技术和可再生能源的成本都非常昂贵。任何一种能源的开发都离不开政府的强力支撑，同样研究新能源和可再生能源也不例外。技术转移和推广也许要政策干预。同时，现存的矿物燃料补贴应逐渐取消，这符合《京都议定书》的要求——逐步减少和终止市场的不完全竞争市场以及对各温室气体排放部门补贴。现在，世贸组织为影响贸易的补贴、标准和标签设置了各项参数。由于渔业补贴导致全球渔业的过度开发，补贴是谈判的焦点内容，有观点人为，世贸组织应就取消能源补贴作出努力。

为建立一个综合的、以一贯之的贸易-能源战略，即将贸易和能源、能源技术、能源补贴、标准、标签、技术转移和技术创新相结合，应该要建立相应的政策和新的法律武器。关于“后京都”时代及其后制度的谈判可谓建立贸易-能源战略提供基础。一旦谈判达成功，其成果应广泛应用到世贸组织和区域贸易协议中。

5．碳，土地利用、土地利用变化和贸易

农业和林业总计释放全球30%的二氧化碳气体。全球农业贸易和规章在全球范围内影响着这些贸易的碳排放，因为土地利用模式的变化对碳平衡有着主要影响。退林还耕，会加大碳排放。森林采伐会增加全球碳排放的18%。农业中，碳排放和庄稼、土地也有直接关系，不当使用，也会加重碳排放量。政府间气候变化专门委员会（Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change，IPCC）报告显示，为实现长期的气候目标，农业减排目标比其他非农业减排所花费的成本更高。

气候变化下的农业贸易

人们希望，多哈回合的最终成果能改革全球农产品种植模式，降低关税、取消出口补贴，并且改革和减少国内农业支持。农业补贴改革为真正促进农业可持续生产活动创造了机遇。

虽然目前特别针对碳截存的农业补贴计划不多，但是这些补贴将来可能会越来越广泛。现在的补贴改革强调将款项和内容分离开来，这也许会顺理成章地导致发达国家通过补贴支持碳截存。

政策制定者也要求对农民、农村这些发展中国家的小型利益相关人给予足够的重视。虽然满足贫困地区的食品安全可能会对最弱势的国家造成气候变化的负面影响，政府应该同时也考虑到这些生产商可能也握有解决气候变化问题的出路。

小型农民不仅常常使用传统的农业可持续发展手段（例如，谷物轮种、混种，土地休耕，少用人工化肥等），并且保持农业生物多样性，选取并分配适合当地条件生长的多种植物种子。随着全球气候的变化，生物多样性的储备对植物种类发展非常重要，因为植物生长要适应世界环境的不断变化。全球贸易谈判应纳入这些内容，作为谈判的主要背景因素。

全球林业贸易

林业和木制品是碳排放的主要来源。在林产品和木制品的使用中，有很多途径能够缓解气候变化。一种途径是，减少森林中温室气体排放的活动，例如减少非法砍伐或加强木料加工的效率。另一种途径是，维持森林吸收二氧化碳的能力，例如低影响伐木并为利用森林和林业产品制定长期战略。第三种途径，加强森林吸收二氧化碳的能力，例如植树造林和复合农林业。

用市场手段促进林业可持续管理的林业产品贸易是一种选择，例如林业管理证明和林业产品标签。国家应确保世贸组织生物标签讨论的达成，来帮助木材可持续开采以及非木材林业产品的证明。

为促进可持续林业产品的市场准入也应付出更多努力，特别是采取非关税壁垒和单边措施。在世贸组织非农业产品市场准入的谈判以及关于取消环境货物和服务关税及非关税壁垒的谈判中，要把相关内容纳入其内。

生物燃料：农业、能源、气候和贸易争议性

在最好的情况下，生物燃料能有效降低一个国家温室气体的排放，并且加强能源安全、减少地方空气污染。生物燃料为农业部门提供了新的机遇——创造新就业机会、开拓农产品新市场。

政府间气候变化专门委员会意识到生物燃料（特别是在热带国家生产的生物燃料）对气候变化的潜在作用。近来，虽然生物燃料的生产已日趋明朗化，但是大量生产也会造成全球食品价格，其对减少温室气体排放的作用并不明显，特别是考虑到土地使用造成的间接影响。如果农民的原料生产被农商取代，也不利于农村发展。有观察者称，生物燃料生产中人权和劳工权利无法得到保障，生物多样性减少和环境恶化，情况堪忧。

解决以上诸多问题方法在于为生物燃料制定可持续发展标准。但是，如何在世贸组织规则下，保持可持续性和证明体系的有效性仍是一个悬而未决的问题。

最有效的生物燃料生产是在发展中国家，但最大的需求来自发达国家。贸易就是这种不平衡的自然结果。但是在有效生产国和最大需求国之间的贸易却受到各种关税和非关税壁垒的限制。减少或废止补贴和对农产品的关税可能能够促进生物燃料的国际贸易。液体生物燃料的高级形式——生物乙醇、生物柴油——是多哈回合谈判的内容之一，他们分别受农业和工业产品的谈判成果影响。世贸组织成员国已提出议案，要求把生物燃料运用到加速环境货物和服务自由化的过程中。

6．贸易的细节——全球货物运输

每天每时每分，都不断有船只、卡车、火车和飞机从事着全球范围内的货物运输，把产品从生产点运往消费点。国际运输部门具有特殊性，因为减少其温室气体排放的任务无法直接落实到某一个具体的国家。传统观念上，人们对温室气体排放抱着“眼不见，心不烦”的态度，所以这个领域的规范立法一直非常落后。在气候变化的谈判中，燃料储备问题多年来一直被搁置一边，直到最近才被提上议程。

虽然空运造成的大量碳足迹已为人们熟知，但海运的碳足迹问题最近才进入人们的视野。国际海事组织（International Maritime Organisation, IMO）最近的一项研究表明，海运排放的二氧化碳量大大超过之前的预期。全球范围内共有9万艘船只运送着全球90%的货物。在过去的三十年里，海运以平均每年3%的速度不断发展，预计，随着全球贸易扩张，到2020年，海运的二氧化碳排放量将增加70%。国际海事组织现在正针对这个问题研究战略措施，具体内容将在2009年12月的哥本哈根会议上发表。

对国际运输碳排放制定规则可能意味着增加全球产品和人员流动的成本，这对国际贸易有相当的意义。限制国际运输部门碳排放会影响特定的服务部门（如，旅游业）。也会特别加重偏远小国的负担。虽然世贸组织的谈判无法影响与气候变化和贸易相关的政策领域，这些政策对贸易的影响值得跟踪。

7．适应性和贸易：有何政策空间？

各个国家都强调他们的气候变化适应性需求，贸易是一个非常不规则的领域。诸如给很多发展中国家带来巨大贸易潜力的农业等部门是受气候变化影响最大的领域，因此最具有适应性需求。政府间气候变化专门委员会预计，截至2020年，几个非洲国家靠雨水灌溉的农业产品将减少50%。另一方面，在温带生产活动会随着气候更加温暖而增加，这会带来贸易顺差。这些变化很有可能会导致国际贸易模式的改变，有些地方获利有些地方损失，加强气候变化适应性刻不容缓，因为很多贫困国家的财政收入主要来自农业。贸易将对适应性技术准入造成影响。

各个国家都需要资源来加强它们应对气候变化的弹性和适应性。主要的污染国应为受气候变化后果之害的发展中国家的适应性费用买单。由贸易推动的经济发展也应帮助增强各国的适应弹性。随着全世界范围内“贸易援助”议案的深入，适应性问题应得到关注。

为加强本国的适应性，各国政府可能会集中以财政援助方式鼓励植物多样性、增加生产率、坚固农业市场。这种国家支持机制如何影响国内和国际生产活动，如何最终影响农业贸易可能会引起贸易方面的担忧，但是这些忧虑还为充分体现。

总的来说，因投入更多的研究工作，探索气候适应性和贸易之间的复杂联系。

本报告由国际贸易和可持续发展中心（International Centre for Trade and Sustainable Development, ICTSD）出版，是ICTSD为2008年5月9日在哥本哈根召开的“WTO-贸易和气候”讨论会做出的整理。本报告由梅林德（Ricardo Melendez-Ortiz）和卡迈尔（Mustapha Kamal Gueye）负责出版，由马琳娜（Malena Sell）编辑，ICTSD撰写。

国际贸易和可持续发展中心（www.ictsd.org）是一个独立的、非盈利、非政府组织，总部位于日内瓦。ICTSD成立于1996年，宗旨：加强可持续发展，以信心、网络、对话、研究和能力建设帮助各利益相关方参与贸易政策制定。

照片版权：www.istockphoto.com© ICTSD.

（中国项目部助理黄震乾翻译）

点击查看英文版

上周，七个主要贸易大国的官员纷纷从各国首都赶来会谈，为弥合他们对发展中国家农业保障机制的分歧坚持作最后努力。发展中国家农业保障机制问题是一项有争议的贸易工具，它直接导致了7月底日内瓦世界贸易会谈的失败。

一些代表认为，上周的非正式会谈是七国集团（G7，包括澳大利亚、巴西、中国、欧盟、印度、日本和美国）证明他们作为多边进程外的谈判小组其存在价值的最后机会。G7会旨在就会谈中悬而未决的议题达成共识，并计划将其传达给WTO其他成员。

但是，G7层面的共识并未达成。事实上，据报道，当印度拒绝签署特殊保障机制（SSM）协议时（G7其他成员都表示他们愿意接受该协议），会谈便嘎然而止。

一位代表用“零结果”来形容会谈的结果，并且质疑那么密切关注SSM问题的意义。另一位代表则认为G7会谈结果令人沮丧，这与决定进行非正式协商时的乐观气氛形成鲜明对比。

一些33国集团（G33，由粮食进口主导的发展中国家组成）的贸易官员对印尼一起其他发展中国家未能受邀参加会谈表示深切遗憾。

G7未能达成共识意味着，现在WTO总干事拉米（Pascal Lamy）在今秋召集各贸易部长回日内瓦是更加不可能了（拉米曾表示，如果G7协商可以取得丰硕成果，那么他会这么做。）消息人士表示，七国部长初步计划在10月2-3日于伦敦举行的会谈可能无法如期召开，虽然他们已经通过高级别接触来“克服其中的困难”。

一位代表在回答“G7是否已经走到了终结”问题时，说：“我希望如此。”

但是，即使剔除SSM问题，还有很多可能造成协议破裂的议题迄今还未得到详细探讨。这些议题包括：棉花补贴、关税配额创造和关税简化。

虽然，拉米还未对上周末结束的G7会谈发表任何公开回应，但是他最近强调了一项世界贸易新协议的必要性。9月24日，WTO年度公共论坛的开幕式上，拉米强调，保持世界贸易体制强健是非常重要的，特别在经济严峻的时代。

“危机时代需要加强消费者的购买力，封锁进出口则会产生恰恰相反的效果。”拉米说，“因此，毋庸置疑，现在席卷金融市场的飓风绝不能阻止国际社会寻求更大的经济一体化和开放性。但是为了保证可持续性和公平性，一体化必须建立在规则之上。并且，规则文本需要定期更新。”

关于保障机制的提案

有消息称，2008年7月欧盟递交的一份提案经过修改，概括了G7会谈上关于SSM的交流意见。此提案包括：交叉核对机制的附加条款、一年“假期”条款、关于计算公历年时间段的提议（而不是十二个月的滚动间隔）。知情人士透露：会谈中，美国坚持交叉核对机制内容。该机制能保证在由数量激增触发SSM机制之前，进口的增加必须对价格有一个确定的影响。所谓“假期”条款能保证SSM机制在不同时期都适用，这意味着补救措施可以不间断地连续采用。

欧盟的这份提案采用了“分层”的方法，也就是说各国可以对较大的进口激增征收较大的关税。7月份小型部长会议中，部长们商议将115-120%作为低层水平，高层水平至少要达到135-140%的进口冲击。如果发展中国家面临价格骤降7.5-15%，那么可以有例外的情况。此时，这些国家可以采用高层水平的关税。

进口国希望能够通过一项条款，确保“自然”贸易增长不会触发SSM机制下的保护性关税。此类措施将允许进口以给定的速度增长，增长速度可能以规定时间段的进口移动平均来确定。然而，超越“自然”增长率的进口激增将会触发SSM补救措施。但是，一些发展中国家的官员指出，乌拉圭回合签署的特殊农业保障没有涵盖此类条款，这意味着如果SSM囊括这项“自然”增长措施会削减其自身的有用性。

走向多边进程

未能恢复多哈回合谈判将给WTO成员方带来各种不同的可能性，这是由不同的进程决定的。

一位贸易官员认为WTO总干事拉米“应该采取一些行动”，并尝试“设定最终期限来寻求折中方案。”也就是说，如果“付总干事薪水的各成员国没有达成协议的意愿，那么协议永远无法达成。”然而，该官员也补充说道，如果协议可以达成，那么总干事要“负责传达和保证其效力。”

主持了WTO农业会谈的新西兰大使法尔科内（Crawford Falconer）正召集不同国家的25位大使进行会谈，讨论“我们所处的位置以及如何最好地开展我们日后的工作”。一些谈判小组（例如，20国集团——农业出口主导的发展中国家小组）也表示期待法尔科内加入他们的内部会谈。

下周开始，法尔科内将开展一系列“林中漫步”的讨论，主要集中在每个成员方对谈判进程和内容特别关注的问题上。

但是，WTO是否准备要开展进程导向性的讨论还是一个问题。对于要求WTO重新评估其工作方式的呼声，拉米在9月24日WTO总部的一份致词中表示，各成员国必须就目前谈判中的内容达成共识，这样才能进一步考虑扩大WTO审议的议题范围，或者改变机构的决策程序。

拉米说：“现在不是讨论如何谈判的时机……这个问题可以商榷，但是这是以后的事情。”

ICTSD报告。

（中国项目部助理黄震乾翻译）

点击查看英文版

针对美国向某些中国钢管、轮胎和复合编织袋制品征收关税的情况，中国政府已经向WTO提出起诉。

周五，中国驻世贸组织使团发表申明表示：“考虑到中美双边协商无法解决中方关注的问题，中国要求在WTO争端解决机制下与美方就[关税]措施进行协商。”

美方声称对中国征收进口关税是因为中国在美国市场上销售的产品低于其正常价值（即WTO的术语——“倾销”）。WTO允许成员国对倾销国征收关税或者采取其他惩罚性措施因此来应对倾销的影响。但是，中国认为，在此次事件中美国太过分了。

中方声明称：“美国对上述产品发起反倾销和反补贴调查后，中国即表示高度关注并且在不同场合反复阐明自己的立场，反对美国在这些调查中的不公平做法。”

中国在官方申诉中表示，征收进口关税“与世界贸易法下美国应该承担的义务相违背”。

此次要求与美方进行协商是中国第二次独立发起WTO贸易争端。虽然，近年来中国已经成为不少贸易争端的起诉目标。

根据WTO争端解决程序，起诉与应诉双方将有60天的时间通过协商解决问题。如果60天后没能达成解决方案，那么中国可以要求WTO法官专家小组参与争端解决。

ICTSD报道。

（中国项目部助理黄震乾翻译）

点击查看英文版

Background

In the course of economic globalization, regional economic integration, with Free Trade Area as its main form, has been growing dramatically. The major Powers and regional Groups accelerate the development of FTAs. By the end of August 2008, there have been 213 FTA-focused Regional Trade Arrangements (RTAs) proposed to the WTO and being effective, covering more than half of global trade in goods.

Free Trade Area and Its Trend of Global Development

Free trade area is a designated group of countries that have agreed to eliminate tariffs, quotas and preferences on most (if not all) goods between them. It aims to reduce barriers and realize liberation of trade and investment. As a WTO Plus, FTA entitles its members more preferential treatment than that does the other WTO members. It is such a complementary to the WTO free trade regime that provides the FTA member economies with much more economic space to realize mutual benefits.

The dynamic growth of Free Trade Area has cast a profound impact on the world economic situation. As the experts from the WTO estimate, more than half of the world trade deal internally in various regional Groups with most favored nation treatment. Many countries tend to take advantage of FTAs, especially when the Doha Round talks meet with difficulties.

Developments of China’s Free Trade Areas

China signed its ever first FTA in 2003. Since then, it has established 12 free trade areas with 29 countries from Asia, Oceania, Latin America, Europe and Africa. China’s major FTAs include:

In order to further enhance the level of economic and trade exchanges and cooperation between the Mainland China and Hong Kong/Macao, CEPA was signed in 2003 and followed 4 Supplementary Agreements. Supplementary Agreement V was signed in July 2008. In the aspect of goods trade, the Mainland had implemented zero tariffs on Hong Kong/Macao originated goods. Besides, the Mainland has eased market access in 40 areas, including law and accounting. In terms of Trade and Investment Facilitation, cooperation has been developed in 9 fields between the Mainland and Hong Kong/Macao, such as trade/investment promotion and Customs facilitation. The implementation of CEPA and its Supplementary Agreements further enhances the level of economic and trade growth in Hong Kong and Macao.

In the 6th China-ASEAN high-level meeting, which was held in November 2001, the Framework Agreement on Comprehensive Economic Cooperation between China and ASEAN was agreed. 2 years later Agreement on Commodity Trade of China-ASEAN Free Trade Area (CAFTA) was signed and the Agreement was put into effective in July 2005. In 2010 and 2015, China will eliminate most of the tariffs on 6 old and 4 new members of ASEAN respectively. Since tariff reduction, the economic and trade cooperation between China and ASEAN has developed rapidly. Now the two parties focus on the negotiation on investment.

China-Chile Free Trade Agreement was signed in November 2005 and implemented in October 2006. According to the Agreement, tariffs on 97 percent tariff lines will be reduced to zero in 10 years. Supplementary Agreement on service trade was signed in Sanya on 13 April 2008 and it will help the two countries to open the service market mutually and improve the investment conditions to gain more benefits for their people.

China-Pakistan FTA was signed in November 2006, which was the major achievement in Chinese President’s visit to Pakistan. It was convinced that progressive reduction and elimination of trade barriers through the conclusion of a FTA, will facilitate a win-win scenario and mutual development of the two Parties. Now the two countries are on the phase of service trade negotiations.

China and New Zealand signed a FTA on 7 April 2008 and planed to put it into effect since 1 October 2008. The importance of this FTA can be categorized into four “Firsts”: New Zealand was the first country to complete bilateral negotiations for China’s entry into the WTO, the first country to recognise China’s status as a full market economy, the first developed country to open negotiations on a free trade zone with China, and the first developed country to complete a free trade agreement with China. These four “firsts” in the history of economic relations with China are especially eye-catching.

The development of China’s free trade areas plays an important economic and political role in China’s strategies of opening and pursuit of a harmonious world. This trade giant will take advantage of FTAs to achieve mutual benefits with other economies.

“China Free Trade Area Network” can be viewed at http://fta.mofcom.gov.cn.

Some delegates considered last week’s informal meeting the final opportunity for the so-called G-7, which includes Australia, Brazil, China, the EU, India, Japan and the US, to demonstrate its value as a negotiating group outside of the multilateral process. The G-7 aimed to reach a consensus on outstanding issues in the talks, which they then planned to present to the broader WTO Membership.

But such a level of agreement was not achieved. Indeed, the talks ended abruptly over the weekend when India reportedly refused to sign off on a compromise deal on the Special Safeguard Mechanism (SSM) that all of the other G-7 members had indicated they could accept.

A delegate called the conclusion of the talks a “zero result” and questioned the value of focusing so closely on the SSM. Another delegate contrasted the dismal outcome of the G-7 meetings with the optimistic atmosphere that prevailed in the lead-up to the informal consultations.

Some trade officials from the G-33, a group of food-importing developing countries, lamented the absence of Indonesia and other developing country group coordinators from the invitation-only talks.

The G-7’s failure to find consensus means that it is now highly unlikely that WTO Director-General Pascal Lamy will summon trade ministers back to Geneva this autumn, a move that he had indicated he was ready to take if the G-7 consultations proved fruitful. Sources indicated that a meeting of the seven ministers tentatively planned to be held in London on 2-3 October is not expected to be convened even though high level contacts were being made “to overcome the setback.”

Asked if the G-7 had reached the end of its life, a delegate replied, “I hope so.”

But even beyond the SSM, many issues that could make or break a potential deal have not been discussed in detail so far. These issues include cotton subsidies, tariff rate quota creation, and tariff simplification.

While Lamy has not responded publicly to the end of the G-7 talks over the weekend, the Director-General recently underscored his belief in the need for a new agreement on world trade. Speaking at the opening of the annual WTO public forum on 24 September, Lamy stressed the importance of keeping the world trade regime strong, especially in the midst of grim economic times.

“What is needed in times of crises is to enable consumers to purchase more for less. The temptation to shut our borders does exactly the opposite,” Lamy said. “There is no doubt therefore that the current hurricane that has hit financial markets must not dissuade the international community from pursuing greater economic integration and openness. But in order to be both sustainable and fair, this integration has to be based on rules. And the rule-book needs to be updated regularly.”

Proposals on the safeguard mechanism

A modified EU proposal from July 2008 framed the exchanges on the SSM at the G-7 talks, sources said. The proposal included additional provisions for a cross-checking mechanism, a year-long “holiday” provision, and a proposal to calculate time periods in calendar years, as opposed to twelve-month rolling intervals. Sources close to the talks said that the US insisted on the cross-checking component, which would ensure that, before a volume-based surge could trigger the mechanism, the additional imports would have to have an identifiable impact on prices. The so-called “holiday” provision would make the SSM applicable at varying periods, meaning that the remedies could not be applied continuously, without interruption.

The EU proposal used a ‘tiered’ approach, meaning that countries would be allowed to impose greater duties in the event of larger import surges. The numbers on the table at the mini-ministerial in July were 115 or 120 percent as a base for the lower tier, while the higher tier would have covered larger surges of at least 135 or 140 percent. An exception would have been made for developing countries facing a steep decline in prices, between 7.5 and 15 percent. In such cases those countries would be allowed to impose the applicable duties from the higher tier.

Exporters were keen to include a provision to ensure that “natural” trade growth would not trigger an imposition of protective tariffs under the SSM. Such a measure would allow imports to grow at a given pace, possibly determined by a moving average over a set time period. However, surges in imports beyond the “natural” growth rate would trigger the SSM remedies. But some developing country officials pointed out that the Special Agricultural Safeguard that was agreed in the Uruguay Round had no such provision, implying that including a measure to account for “natural” growth would make the mechanism less useful.

Moving towards a multilateral process

The failure to revive the Doha Round talks is expected to have broad process-oriented consequences for WTO Members.

One trade official argued that WTO Director-General Pascal Lamy “should take some action” and try to “set deadlines and find the technical compromises.” Explaining that if the countries that “pay the D-G’s salary do not want an agreement, it will not come.” The source nonetheless added that to have an agreement the Director-General will have to “focus on delivery and accountability.”

Ambassador Crawford Falconer of New Zealand, the chair of WTO farm talks, is convening a meeting of 25 ambassadors from a cross-section of countries to determine “where we are and how we should best structure our future work.” Some negotiating groups, such as the G-20, a group of developing-country agricultural exporters, are also expecting Falconer to attend their internal meetings.

Beginning next week, the chair of the farm talks is expected to start a series of ‘walk in the woods’ discussions that will focus on each Member’s particular concerns about both the process and the content of the negotiations.

But whether the WTO is ready for process-oriented discussions is an open question. Responding to calls from some quarters for the WTO to reassess the way it conducts its business, Lamy said in an address at WTO headquarters on 24 September that countries must find consensus on the matters that are already on the table before they begin to think about expanding the issues under consideration at the WTO, or about changing decision-making at the institution.

“It is not the time to launch parallel negotiations on how to negotiate…that may be an idea, but it’s an idea for later,” he said.

ICTSD reporting.

Chinese Version

“Considering that bilateral consultations between China and the US failed to solve concerns of China, China requested consultations with the US under the WTO dispute settlement mechanism regarding those measures,” the Chinese mission to the WTO said in a statement released on Friday.

Washington imposed the import tariffs arguing that China was selling those products in the US market at less than their normal value, a practice known as ‘dumping’ in WTO parlance. The WTO allows Members to try to counter the effects of dumping by imposing tariffs or other punitive measures against the offending country, but China argues that, in this case, the US has gone too far.

“After the anti-dumping and countervailing investigations by the US against the above mentioned products were initiated, China was highly concerned and has repeatedly articulated its position at various occasions, opposing the unfair practices of the US in those investigations,” the Chinese statement said.

China believes the import duties are “inconsistent with the obligations of the United States” under world trade laws, the country said in its official complaint.

The request for consultations with the US marks only the second time that China has independently launched a dispute at the WTO, although Beijing has been the target of a number of challenges in recent years.

In accordance with WTO dispute settlement process, the two parties will now have 60 days to resolve the matter through consultations. If no solution is found by the end of that period, then China can ask a panel of WTO judges to consider the case.

ICTSD reporting.

Chinese Version

德国灯泡生产商欧司朗（Osram）已经撤回了对中国节能综合电子紧凑型荧光灯（CFL）延长欧盟反倾销税的申请。8月11日的决议预示着，这项历时长久的高层贸易争端讨论将在可预见的将来划上句号。

欧司朗是欧洲的主要荧光灯生产商。2001年，它要求允许对中国进口品征收反倾销税。同年，反倾销措施开始实施；去年十月，该措施获准再延长一年。由于提交延长申请的时效已过，现在反倾销税将在10月18日过期。

欧司朗的决定部分似乎是因为缺乏欧盟的政治支持。欧司朗首席执行官顾梓乐（Martin Goetzeler）先生在一项申明中说：“我们不得不承认……我们没能确保欧司朗在欧洲市场的大部分份额。”

自从2001年开始征收反倾销税起，欧司朗承受的政治压力越来越大。这种压力来自各利益相关方，包括环保团体、销售商、消费者以及企业竞争对手。

去年十月，反倾销税获准延长一年，公司承担的这种压力进一步加大。当时，世界自然基金会（WWF）一项消息称：“这是狭隘的保护主义，并给发展中国家生产商带去了一个令人遗憾的信息：他们会被由更高环境标准生产的（这些标准受到欧洲消费者青睐）、更为干净的产品驱逐出市场。”

在2008年7月的一个销售商圆桌会议中，很多商界领袖（包括乐购（Tesco）的首席执行官特里•莱希爵士（Sir Terry Leahy）和宜家（IKEA）的管理层成员汉森（Sören Hansen））认为，最高达66%的关税导致消费者在商家购物时价格“人为地通胀了”，这对人们的节能灯泡购买欲有不利影响。

这个案例也引起了多方关注，因为欧洲的灯泡制造商分布广泛，有的把生产厂家放在中国，有的在欧洲的本土生产。虽然欧司朗在中国也有工厂，但是生产仍然集中在欧洲。把主要生产设施安置在亚洲的飞利浦照明（Philips Lighting）以及其他的欧洲生产商认为，关税挤兑了他们的利润并对此表示不满。这些公司在欧盟原讼法庭分别为自己辩护，要求完全取消反倾销税。

虽然荧光灯案即将结束，分析师们认为，该案件可能会代理充当欧盟反倾销措施的一些规则，以便这些规则接受重新考察。一位驻布鲁塞尔的贸易律师唐晓奕说：“这项反倾销案件推动了目前正在进行的两大讨论——决策制定标准以及如何实践‘欧共体社会利益’。” 唐晓奕认为，欧盟不仅需要考虑生产商、销售商、消费者三方的平衡，还要兼顾贸易政策工具和更广泛的社会政策目标（例如气候安全，社会和环境问题等）之间的平衡。

相关人士指出，修改贸易保护机制有很多困难，很难解决。复旦大学的经济学家舒旻表示，节能灯泡问题只是反映欧盟反倾销措施背后复杂的政治经济问题的一个小窗口。舒旻指出，各欧盟成员国的生产商之间有冲突，这主要是说灯泡案例中的荷兰的飞利浦公司和德国的欧司朗公司。他还指出，贸易专员和行业专员的区分会使问题复杂化，这主要是指欧盟贸易专员曼德尔森（Peter Mandelson）的改革贸易保护规则的提案遭到搁置。

国际贸易和可持续发展中心报道；“欧盟要求延长中国灯泡关税，欧司朗不理会”，路透社，2008年8月11日；“欧盟无法就反倾销规则达成一致”，国际先驱论坛报，2008年1月13日；“销售商敦促欧盟取消节能灯泡反倾销税”，卫报，2008年7月21日；“欧盟允许中国特殊产品出口无关税”，海地新闻，2008年8月12日。

（中国项目部助理黄震乾翻译）

点击查看英文版

Osram, the dominant CFL producer in Europe, requested permission to impose anti-dumping duties against Chinese exports in 2001. Measures were imposed the same year and were extended for another year last October. Because the deadline for submitting and extension application has already lapsed, the duties are now set to expire on 18 October.

It appears that Osram’s decision is in part based on a lack of political support in the EU. “We have had to concede…that we have not been able to secure a majority in Europe for the Osram position,” the company’s CEO Martin Goetzeler said in a statement.

Political pressure from a wide range of stakeholders - including environmentalist groups, retailers, consumers and business competitors - over the duties had been growing since they were imposed in 2001.

This pressure intensified last October when the anti-dumping duties were given a one year extension. “This is narrowly protectionist and sends a regressive message to developing country producers that they will be excluded from markets for cleaner products created by the higher environmental standards expected by European consumers,” said a WWF press release at the time.

In a July 2008 retailers roundtable, many business leaders - including Sir Terry Leahy of Tesco and Sören Hansen of Ikea - said the tariffs of up to 66 percent ensured that prices were “artificially inflated” when consumers reached the shops and this depressed demand for energy-saving bulbs.

The case has also attracted widespread attention because of the divide of Europe’s light bulb makers between those who have production plants in China and those focusing on local production in Europe. While Osram does have factories in China, production remains focussed in Europe. Philips Lighting and other EU producers with their main production facilities in Asia complain that the duties have been squeezing their profit margins. These companies have been fighting their own case at the EU Court of First Instance to have the anti-dumping duties scrapped completely.

Although the CFL anti-dumping case is coming to a close, analysts think it might serve as a proxy for revisiting some rules in EU anti-dumping measures. “This anti-dumping case has put forward the ongoing discussions on the decision making criteria and process to practice the definition of ‘EC community interests’,” says Xiaoyi Tang, a Brussels-based trade lawyer. Tang says the EU needs to not only strike a balance between producers, retailers and consumers, but also between trade policy instruments and broader community policy objectives such as climate security, social and environmental standards.

Some point out that obstacles to revise trade defence mechanisms are difficult to overcome. Min Shu, an economist at Fudan University, says the energy saving light bulb issue is just a small window for the complex political economy behind the EU anti-dumping measures. Shu says there are clashes between producers from EU member states (i.e., Netherlands-based Philips and Germany-based Osram in the light bulb case. He also says that the divide between the trade Commissioner and industry Commissioner can complicate matters, and points to the shelving of EU trade commissioner Peter Mandelson’s proposal to reform trade defence rules as an example.

ICTSD Reporting; “Osram drops EU call to extend Chinese bulb duties,” REUTERS, 11 Aug. 2008; “Europe can’t agree on anti-dumping rules,” INTERNATIONAL HERALD TRIBUNE, 13 Jan. 2008; “Retailers urge EU to scrap anti-dumping duties on energy-saving lightbulbs,” THE GUARDIAN, 21 July 2008; “Osram drops EU call to extend Chinese bulb duties,” REUTERS, 11 Aug. 2008; “EU allows China to export special globes sans duty,” HAITI NEWS, 12 Aug. 2008.

Chinese Version