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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This high-level conference will bring together various stakeholders active in trade and development, including personalities from governments, international organizations, civil society, academia and the private sector from some 45 developing countries, key OECD members and emerging economies. Together, these participants will interact freely, exchange their experiences and debate concrete and innovative solutions to address specific challenges and opportunities developing countries face in the process of integrating into the world economy.

The Forum is expected to deliver country-specific action plans (AP)/ recommendations, policy principles on trade governance, new ideas and approaches to promote trade as a development tool, a follow-up mechanism, and guidelines for further cooperation among participants. A selected group of key stakeholders will form a constituency for change and together they will work with the results of the conference to advance the Forum’s agenda.

To register, click here for the 1st Conference of the Geneva Trade & Development Forum at the Regent Conference Center in Crans-Montana from 17-20 September 2008. It is encouraged that interested parties register before 15 August.

The Forum is supported by Denmark, France, Germany, the Netherlands and Switzerland.

A new study shows that Doha market access promises to least-developed countries (LDCs) would be undermined by barriers to key exports. This groundbreaking report was released in advance of the Mini-Ministerial trade talks held at the WTO headquarters in Geneva during the last two weeks in July.

As trade ministers gathered at the WTO to try and reach a compromise in the global trade talks, one of the main objectives was to help the world’s poorest countries expand their participation in global trade through the successful conclusion of the Doha Development Round. But, promises by industrialised nations to grant unrestricted market access to exports from LDCs as part of a WTO deal would be rendered practically worthless unless they cover all products, according to this new study commissioned by the International Centre for Trade and Sustainable Development. In this paper, it is estimated how LDCs’ access to rich and selected emerging markets would be affected by excluding certain products from liberalisation.

WTO members agreed in 2005 to make it mandatory for developed countries, and optional for developing countries, to give duty- and quota-free market access to all exports from least-developed countries (LDCs). They insisted on being allowed to exclude up to 3% of tariff lines from this so-called ‘Duty Free Quota Free Market Access’ (DFQFMA) initiative, in order to protect sensitive sectors.

This recent study shows that this exception could suffice to cover the small handful of products that LDCs make and export competitively. “In most developed country markets, 3% of tariff lines cover between 90% and 98% of exports from LDCs,” found author David Laborde. “The 3 % exclusion manages to neutralize the initiative almost completely in developed country markets,” he wrote.

Extending duty- and quota-free coverage to all products, however, would minimise the harm caused to LDCs by multilateral tariff cuts under a Doha agreement, the study found. When rich countries lower import barriers to products from China, India, Brazil, and the industrialised world, it inevitably erodes the trade preferences that LDCs enjoy in their markets. But with full duty and quota-free market access for LDCs, these losses are confined to a much smaller number of countries.

The study demonstrates that giving LDCs duty-free market access and simple rules of origin leads to export growth and diversification. As the Director of Programmes at ICTSD, Christophe Bellman, said, “Quite simply, duty-free quota-free access for LDCs works.”

Chair of the TRIPS special sessions, Ambassador Manzoor Ahmad (Pakistan), authored a document (TN/IP/18, available at http://docsonline.wto.org) on negotiations regarding the creation of a multilateral system for registering GIs - product names associated with places and characteristics - for wines and spirits. Ahmad’s report declined to discuss the TRIPS biodiversity amendment or GI extension issues, calling them “beyond the mandate” of the special session he chairs, which is limited only to issues regarding the GI registry for wines and spirits. A second report (WT/GC/W/591 - TN/C/W/50), issued by Director-General Pascal Lamy, covered the two other issues.

Included in Lamy’s paper was reference to an official submission (WT/GC/W/590 - TN/C/W/49) by India last week to the highest-level negotiating body, the Trade Negotiations Committee that operates under the WTO General Council. India submitted the document, which argues in favour of the TRIPS biodiversity amendment, on behalf of a large group of developing countries, including the least developed country group and the Africa Caribbean and Pacific group. The amendment in question concerns the introduction of a mandatory requirement for the disclosure of origin of biological resources and associated traditional knowledge in patent applications.

Meanwhile, two recent ‘non-papers’ reflect the division in negotiations, reasoning either for or against the inclusion of these three IP issues in the agenda of the forthcoming TRIPS Council meeting, scheduled to take place as part of the horizontal negotiations in the overall Doha round.

On the one hand, some WTO Members believe that these issues should be part of the horizontal process in order to have modality texts that reflect ministerial agreement on the key parameters for negotiating a final draft legal text as part of the single undertaking. Yet other Members maintain that no further guidance is necessary since the existing mandate is sufficiently clear and technical work can and should be pursued on this basis.

The TRIPS Council will take place from 17-18 June.

ICTSD reporting; “Reports on WTO IP Negotiations released,” INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY WATCH.

Le débat se poursuit encore aujourd’hui, et suscite plus de frictions que jamais : certains pays développés insistent pour attribuer des droits et obligations différents aux pays en développement ainsi qu’entre pays à l’intérieur de cette catégorie. Lors des négociations du cycle de Doha en cours, trois délais n’ont pas été respectés, et le président de la Commission du Commerce et du Développement (CCD) a reconnu que “tous les efforts visant à trouver un terrain d’entente” n’avaient pas été couronnés de succès à la fin 2002 et qu’un blocage pourrait tout à fait s’instaurer lors de la prochaine session du Conseil général s’agissant de l’adoption d’un rapport demandant au Conseil général de trancher “as appropriate” les divergences entre Membres. C’est dans ce contexte qu’ICTSD se propose de contribuer au débat en fournissant un compte-rendu et une analyse accessibles de certaines des questions qui figurent en bonne place dans ce débat. Les pays d’Afrique ont joué un rôle de premier plan, tant lors des négociations que pour revendiquer des dispositions renforcées et efficaces en matière de TSD. C’est du Groupe africain qu’émanent certaines des contributions les plus importantes à ce jour, ce qui peut d’ailleurs se comprendre aisément. Ainsi, la seule proposition entièrement acceptée par les Membres lors du rapport du 31 juillet 2002 au CCD provient du Groupe africain qui réclamait un mécanisme de contrôle pour le TSD, même si, comme on pouvait s’y attendre, la forme que ce mécanisme devait prendre s’est avérée, elle aussi, être une pomme de discorde.

Dans le document d’orientation qui suit, le Dr. Francis Mangeni appuie son analyse sur la question de savoir si les pays développés ont la volonté et la capacité, tout d’abord de soutenir des changements à apporter aux règles de l’OMC, et ensuite d’investir leurs ressources dans des programmes qui s’attaquent directement aux contraintes auxquelles font face les pays en développement qui cherchent à mettre en oeuvre et à respecter leurs obligations et à profiter de manière équitable ou compétitive des chances qu’est sensé offrir le système commercial multilatéral. Il affirme que la caractéristique et l’issue du débat dépendront de la mesure dans laquelle la réponse à cette question est affirmative. Il aborde ensuite bon nombre de points controversés tels que la gradation, la justification d’un mécanisme de contrôle et la question toujours aussi épineuse de l’assistance technique et du renforcement des capacités.

A ICTSD, nous continuerons à alimenter le débat sur ce sujet important et à présenter la perspective du développement durable sur les questions en discussion, ce par le biais de nos divers programmes qui se concentrent sur les besoins spécifiques des pays en développement, en apportant ce genre de contributions et d’autres dans le cadre de nos activités axées sur la recherche et le dialogue.