list-of-participants_word-version

Bonn
11th June
(19h30-21h00) 
Rail Room
Ministry of Transport
 

Link to Webcast of side event:
http://unfccc2.meta-fusion.com/kongresse/090601_SB30_Bonn/templ/ply_page.php?id_kongresssession=1845&player_mode=isdn_real

The International Centre for Trade and Sustainable Development (ICTSD) held a side event on recent developments in relation to climate change, technology transfer and IPRs and the way forward, in the context of the UNFCCC climate change meetings taking place in Bonn (1-12 June).
 
Transfer and diffusion of environmentally sound technologies (EST), in particular to developing countries, is a key element of any effective international response to the global climate change challenge and one of the pillars of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). 
 
Discussions on transfer of technology, and IPRs in particular, reflect the urgent need for further evidence based analysis to inform current negotiations.
 
In this regard,  the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), the European Patent Office (EPO) and the International Centre for Trade and Sustainable Development (ICTSD) have decided to undertake a joint study on patents and clean technologies to address this need. (link to webcast:
http://unfccc2.meta-fusion.com/kongresse/090601_SB30_Bonn/templ/ply_page.php?id_kongresssession=1845&player_mode=isdn_real
 
The objectives and the main components of the study were presented at the side event as well as the preliminary results of the patent landscape prepared in its framework.
 
The side event sought to present different opinions and perspectives on technology transfer and IPRS and on the means to achieve progress on these issues, on the road to Copenhagen, in  a manner which contributes to the wide diffusion of climate change technologies to developing countries.
 
The side event is part of ICTSD’s Global Platform on Climate Change, Trade and Sustainable Energy which is specifically aimed at contributing to effective international cooperation towards addressing climate change, by advancing analytical capacity of stakeholders and their interaction with policy makers such that effective solutions can be built and agreed by the international community at the Copenhagen COP-15, in December 2009.

For further information, please contact Ahmed Abdel Latif at aabdellatif@ictsd.ch

19-20 May, Hotel Marina, Rio de Janeiro

2009 promises to be a year full of challenges as well as opportunities. The global economic crisis has battered economies worldwide and coming out of it will test the capabilities of all nations - developed as well as developing – to be creative and resilient. At the same time it also offers a good occasion for policymakers to rethink the nature and patterns of investment and economic growth so as to make it more sustainable, economically as well as environmentally. The urgency and importance of tackling climate change and the need to build political consensus in the UNFCCC summit in Copenhagen towards the end of the year offers a good opportunity for countries to engage in constructive thinking and action to craft sustainable growth strategies.

The adverse impacts of climate change will be felt most heavily in developing countries. Trade can be an important tool in helping these countries build economic resilience and also aid worldwide economic recovery. Yet, such economic recovery will need to be responsive to the climate change needs and concerns. Business as usual is clearly not an option. A number of countries indeed are taking steps towards ‘greening’ their economies as part of economic stimulus packages to escape the crisis.

Since the Trade Ministers’ meeting on the margins of the UNFCCC’s COP-13 in Bali, there has been some basic agreement on and lively analytical debate of the nexus between trade and climate change. For the most part, the thrust has been for ways in which the trade regime might help address climate change, while at the same time furthering its own objectives (as with the possibility of liberalization in trade of low-carbon goods). There has likewise been some nascent thinking on how to ensure mutual supportiveness between the two regimes. Absent in large part from this however has been serious consideration of the implications of this debate for developing countries, and for overall development objectives such as the Millennium Development Goals particularly at a regional level.

As a contribution to this debate, the International Centre for Trade and Sustainable (ICTSD), The International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD) and the Centro de Estudos de Integração e Desenvolvimento (CINDES) in Brazil are organising the Latin American Regional Dialogue on Trade and Climate Change, designed to bring out Latin American developing country perspectives and input on the issues at the heart of the trade and climate change interface.

The objectives of the Latin American Regional Dialogue are to:

1) Explore issues at the interface of trade and climate change that are of concern and interest to Latin America;

2) Identify a positive agenda able to contribute to engagement of Latin American countries in the process of negotiations towards Copenhagen;

3) Provide a platform for interaction and exchange amongst climate change and trade negotiators; policy-makers, and other stakeholders in the private sector and civil society, in Latin America.

The consultations will be multi-stakeholder, bringing together Latin American NGOs, private sector actors and governments. Among the issues and questions sought to be examined include:

• What sorts of barriers are there to the diffusion and dissemination of clean energy technologies? Are IPRs a significant barrier? What in-country policy changes might foster greater investment flows (both domestic and foreign)? What sorts of institutions, both domestic and international, might help address the problems?

• Would reform of the WTO subsidies structures be helpful to developing country governments pursuing adaptation objectives (e.g., for supporting R&D, for helping firms meet pollution control costs)?

• What kinds of impacts would developing countries feel if border carbon adjustment measures were imposed in OECD countries? Would these be significant economically? Would they in the end be helpful or hindering in encouraging strong action on climate change from developing countries?

• What specific trade and competitiveness concerns may arise in developing countries as a result of action international to mitigate climate and how could they be addressed in both the trade and climate regime?

• What kinds of policy flexibility do developing countries need to pursue adaptation to pending climate change impacts particularly in sectors economically important to Latin American countries? Do these needs suggest changes to the existing WTO rules in such areas as agriculture, or changes in the thrust of the Doha talks? What about regional or bilateral trade and investment agreements?

The answers to these questions and others will feed into the work programmes of ICTSD, IISD and relevant regional institutions on trade and climate change, and more broadly into the wider debates in the area. The results will be part of the input for trade and climate change meetings expected in Copenhagen’s seminal COP-15, and should also feed into any discussions on trade and climate change that might take place in the WTO setting.

[1] This dialogue is part of IISD’s Bali to Copenhagen programme which involves research, analysis and networking on trade and climate change issues.  IISD gratefully acknowledges the support for this programme provided by the Ministries for Foreign Affairs of Norway, Sweden and Finland. On ICTSD’s side, this dialogue is conducted under its Global Platform on Climate Change, Trade Policies and Sustainable Energy. An initiative is supported by DANIDA (Denmark); Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Finland; the Department for International Development (U.K.); the Ministry for Foreign Affairs of Sweden; the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Norway; and the Commonwealth Secretariat

Please, visit the Website of the UNFCCC for more Informations!

Estos acuerdos tienen y tendrán sin duda muchas implicaciones no sólo en el ámbito comercial sino que definirán aspectos fundamentales en el diseño de políticas económicas y de desarrollo sostenible en esrtos países.

Con el fin de apoyar a los equipos negociadores de Colombia, Ecuador y Perú en la mesa de comercio y desarrollo sostenible del acuerdo con la UE, ICTSD junto a la Corporación Andina de Fomento (en cooperación con la Comisión Economica para América Latina y el Caribe) organizan un ” Taller andino sobre comercio y desarrollo sostenible en las negociaciones de un Acuerdo Comercial entre la Unión Europea y Colombia, Ecuador y Perú”.

Dicho evento tiene lugar los días 25 y 26 de marzo en Lima, Perú.

Esto a su vez se inserta en un contexto internacional donde la agenda de la Organización Mundial de Comercio (OMC) y los Acuerdos de Libre Comercio que se multiplican alrededor del mundo, intentan definir el rumbo y la dinámica de los intercambios comerciales entre las regiones y países.

Frente a la OMC y estos procesos de liberación comercial, los Acuerdos Multilaterales de Medio Ambiente (AMUMA) plantean retos y desafíos en la medida que las posiciones de los países desarrollados-orientadas a incrementar niveles y estándares de protección ambiental -se contraponen a la posición de los países en desarrollo que encuentran en estos mismos Acuerdos algunos escollos (por ejemplo en el ámbito laboral, productivo y comercial) que se perciben como limitantes para las posibilidades de progreso social y económico.

Dentro de la OMC, entre los múltiples temas que se abordan y, especialmente como parte de la Ronda de Doha, se encuentra precisamente, cómo compatibilizar la necesidad de promover un crecimiento económico en el tiempo (muchas veces presionando sobre el ambiente y los recursos naturales) al mismo tiempo que se mantienen o mejoran niveles de protección ambiental que permitan el mantenimiento de los sistemas ecológicos y, en general, un medio saludable para los seres humanos.

El trabajo de Jaime García “Hacia una Lista Potencial de Bienes Ambientales para Sudamérica: Criterios para una Perspectiva de Desarrollo Sostenible”, ofrece un análisis bastante pormenorizado de una de las variables más controvertidas dentro de los debates internacionales al interior de la OMC y otros foros. A saber, cómo entender la noción de “bienes ambientales” de manera que permita a los países en desarrollo- especialmente a los países andinos -posicionarse mejor en estas discusiones y sacar ventaja de un hecho incontrastable: una riqueza en términos de biodiversidad a nivel de ecosistemas, especies y recursos genéticos. Paradójicamente, esta enorme riqueza contrasta con niveles de pobreza alarmantes en estos países que inciden en una continua degradación ambiental y la disminución de la calidad de vida en general.

García describe claramente cómo los países desarrollados han logrado (con matices) definir y precisar lo que son bienes ambientales y plantear para ellos, por ejemplo, la eliminación de aranceles. Estos países entienden claramente las implicancias de diferenciar entre definiciones tradicionales de “bienes ambientales” (donde tienen ventajas en las negociaciones internacionales) que incluyen la gestión de la contaminación, la generación de tecnologías limpias y métodos de producción más eficientes y definiciones más amplias que podrían incluir productos ambientales tales como fibras controles biológicos, productos no maderables del bosque, productos resultantes de eco-negocios, entre otros, donde los países en desarrollo tiene más bien mejores posibilidades por explotar en estas mismas negociaciones.

En ese sentido, los países sudamericanos, en esencia, no han logrado por distintas razones tales como el desinterés político, limitadas capacidades institucionales y hasta desconocimiento de la relevancia de los temas, armonizar sus posiciones y en algunos casos tienen una participación casi nula o muy poco relevante en el contexto de las negociaciones internacionales donde se discute sobre los bienes ambientales y el comercio.

Esto último, como lo sugiere el autor, hace evidente una limitada articulación entre actores de la sociedad civil, el sector empresarial y productivo y el Estado en la evaluación de opciones y generación de estrategias para sacar ventajas en el ámbito de las negociaciones comerciales internacionales (especialmente en la OMC) de una mayor riqueza potencial en cuanto a bienes ambientales casi connaturales al medio geográfico y ecológico de estos países.

El trabajo de García se hace también bastante digerible en la medida que incluye una serie de conclusiones y recomendaciones pertinentes al tema de los bienes ambientales. Los anexos y especialmente a bibliografía utilizada ofrecen una herramienta útil para profundizar y ampliar el análisis de los temas.

Jaime García es Economista y catedrático de la Universidad de Lima y su investigación fue financiada a través del Programa de Bienes y Servicios Ambientales del Centro Internacional para el Comercio y el Desarrollo Sostenible (ICTSD) con sede en Ginebra, Suiza y que a su vez ha sido apoyado por el Ministerio de Relaciones Exteriores de Luxemburgo.

Sin duda, el trabajo de García constituye un excelente esfuerzo por sistematizar y sintetizar información y datos relevantes para a partir de ello proponer algunas reflexiones que deben contribuir a despertar el interés de los países y sus diferentes actores en los procesos de negociación comercial- ambiental internacional, con particular énfasis en las actualmente un tanto lentas negociaciones en el ámbito de la OMC.

The member economies of the Asia‐Pacific Economic Forum (APEC) are bound to have a critical role in the debate and implementation of – in particular – the trade‐related aspects of any forthcoming international framework on climate change. Indeed, not only do APEC economies account for more than 47% of total world trade, which undoubtedly stand to be affected by trade policy reforms adopted consequent to or in anticipation of a binding international climate change regime; more positively, APEC itself as a forum has proven to be a successful incubator to cutting‐edge policy reform initiatives. These characteristics thus arm APEC and its member economies with the leverage to explore innovative ideas and options under the rubric of a cooperative and voluntary approach.

Mindful of the imperative to take a more pro‐active role in dealing with the broader issues relating to climate change, APEC Leaders drew up in September 2007 during Australia’s chairmanship an agenda of practical, co‐operative actions and initiatives within APEC as a complement to those actions being undertaken by APEC economies in other fora. The APEC agenda focuses on a number of key issues which relate to trade, including trade in environmental goods and services; low emissions technology and innovation; energy efficiency; alternative and low carbon energy uses; civil aviation transport; and policy analysis capability. Peru followed through with a workshop focused on environmental goods and services in May 2008; Singapore as APEC chair for this year is manifestly keen to build on these efforts especially with the spectre of the crucial UNFCCC Conference of Parties slated in December in Copenhagen, Denmark.

As a contribution to fostering better understanding among the various stakeholders from the different countries in the APEC region on the linkages between trade and climate change, ICTSD and TFCTN are organizing a series of dialogues commencing this February. This discussion is particularly relevant at this point in time, given the intensive preparations leading to the aforementioned Copenhagen summit. At the same time, with the Doha Round of negotiations at the World Trade Organisation currently at an impasse, many observers deem it important that trade policy and other decision‐makers grapple with the other real and impending problems confronting business and other stakeholders today. In this regard, the dialogues seek in a tangible way to focus the minds of trade policy makers in particular on the implications of the climate change debate and the daunting negotiations looming over the UNFCCC. It is likewise hoped that the proposed series of dialogues countries will enhance APEC member economies’ ability to find common threads in their appreciation for the hard issues confronting the international community, and that through a dynamic exchange of perspectives and insights from multiple stakeholders and trade and climate change experts which the dialogues bring together, some of the elements of the APEC agenda on climate change are further clarified, if not fleshed out.

The dialogues will bring together a group of 35 key stakeholders including international experts, high‐level policy‐makers from the region, climate change negotiators and representatives from the business community, academia and civil society. The first meeting in February is deliberately scheduled at the tail‐end of the APEC Senior Officials’ Meeting in order to benefit from complementary logistical arrangements for those APEC officials attending this and related meetings. As with previous dialogues on trade and climate change organized by ICTSD, the dialogue will be conducted in an open, informal manner. Discussions will be initiated by short presentations by practitioners, scholars and government officials followed by open debate among participants. In all of these, the perspective from the private sector as well as those with a stake in seeking to influence decision‐making, with a view to ensuring rational and coherent policies towards sustainable development will be incorporated.

Fisheries trade relations between the EU and ACP countries are governed by World Trade Organization (WTO) provisions, as well as those of the Cotonou Partnership Agreement (CPA) between the EU and ACP countries. These relations are undergoing a period of change, with the negotiation of new economic partnership agreements (EPAs) that will replace current unilateral trade preferences offered by the EU with reciprocal preferences. The ACP-EU EPA negotiations have given rise to concerns about potential loss of preferences that could result in a significant decrease of export revenues for ACP countries. Other issues of concern for ACP countries relate to tariff escalation and tariff peaks, reforming rules of origin, and the implications of EU regulations on sanitary and phytosanitary (SPS) measures. The inclusion of investment in the negotiations brings a new dimension that warrants careful consideration.

The continuation of uninterrupted market access for fish and fish products was a primary motivation for several ACP countries to agree to initial interim economic partnership agreements (IEPAs) or to agree to full EPAs with the European Community at the end of 2007. In certain cases a specific fisheries chapter was included in a regional IEPA/EPA. This was the case for the East African Community (EAC) and Eastern and Southern Africa (ESA) IEPAs, and similarly for the chapter on agriculture and fisheries in the Caribbean EPA (CARIFORUM). In other cases, fisheries were part of bilateral IEPAs between the EU and certain non-least developed countries (LDCs) in the ACP. This was the case for Côte d’Ivoire and Ghana, as West Africa did not come to an agreement with the European Community on a regional EPA at the end of December 2007.

The process of negotiating EPAs, including negotiations on rules governing trade and market access for fish and fish products, has been complex, challenging and divisive for the ACP groupings. At present, ACP groups yet to finalize their negotiations with the European Community are under pressure to do so. In regions that have already initialled an interim agreement, a number of questions subject to possible renegotiations remain. Overall, there is an urgent need for regions with IEPAs to ensure satisfaction with fisheries provisions already negotiated, and for regions without interim EPAs to learn from others in order to better articulate their positions in the process of negotiating full EPAs.

In response to these concerns, the International Centre for Trade and Sustainable Development (ICTSD) is initiating a process of analytical review of negotiations on fisheries under the EPA negotiations. This effort seeks to provide a better understanding of the substance of the provisions contained in IEPA/EPA agreements and to assess their significance from a trade, livelihood and sustainable development perspective.

As part of this process, this study is intended to be a practical tool for national and regional policymakers and stakeholders. It is meant to contribute to enhancing preparedness for negotiations of full EPAs such that the outcome contributes effectively to improving livelihoods and food security, ensuring meaningful market access, and achieving broad sustainable development objectives in ACP countries.

Liam Campling is currently a PhD candidate in development studies at the School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London. His research examines the global commodity chains in canned tuna (centred on the EU and US), with a focus on their developmental relationship with Fiji and Seychelles.

He has published on development in small island states, the politics of international trade relations and commodity studies in the Journal of Developing Societies, the Journal of Agrarian Change (with Henry Bernstein), Sustainable Development (with Michel Rosalie), Island Studies Journal (with Elizabeth Havice) and Development Policy Review (with Jesper Nielson and Stefano Ponte). He is on the editorial board of the journal Historical Materialism and is reviews editor of the Journal of Agrarian Change. Since November 2007 he has been consultant trade policy analyst to the Pacific Islands Forum Fisheries Agency (FFA). He has also worked as a consultant for the Common Market for Eastern and Southern Africa (COMESA), the Commonwealth Secretariat, the Center for the Development of Enterprise (CDE), the governments of Mauritius and Seychelles, the Pacific Islands Forum Secretariat, the Regional Trade Facilitation Programme and United Nations Research Insitute for Social Development (UNRISD). He previously taught international politics and history on the University of Manchester Twinning Programme, Seychelles Polytechnic.

This paper is part of ICTSD’s project on fisheries, trade and sustainable development, which aims to foster an inclusive and informed process for crafting multilateral, regional and domestic trade rules and policies in the fisheries sector that are supportive of sustainable development.

· Addressing important and persistent knowledge gaps relevant to domestic regulation and market access discussions within the GATS negotiations.
· Assessing the positive and negative impacts of developing potential WTO disciplines on domestic regulation particularly in environmental services.

As a contribution to addressing the implications for WTO Members that intend to make concrete commitments in GATS negotiations particularly in the area of environmental services, ICTSD will present the findings from a paper on the regulatory principles in environmental services prepared by Dr. Massimo Geloso Grosso. The paper seeks to contribute knowledge and stimulate further dialogue on the part of policymakers and trade negotiators by examining the principles of regulatory and institutional practice in the environmental services sector, both infrastructure and non-infrastructure categories, and the main issues relating to the regulation of these services within the General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS). The paper makes clear that GATS can affect governments’ regulatory behaviour, particularly when specific commitments are made. It also argues that given that the GATS allows WTO Members considerable flexibility to accommodate domestic policies, it is critical that negotiators and government officials carefully examine provisions of the GATS and to adjust specific commitments to fit domestic policy objectives. At the same time, specific commitments should only be made once appropriate regulatory systems have been implemented.

Participation is by invitation only. If you would like to receive an invitation please contact:

Mahesh Sugathan at: smahesh@ictsd.ch (Tel: 022-9178351)

Or

Sheila Sabune at: ssabune@ictsd.ch (Tel: 022-9178775)

While Paragraph 31 (iii) of the Doha mandate calls for a reduction, or as appropriate, elimination of tariffs and non-tariff barriers (NTBs) on EGS, the lack of a universally accepted definition on EGS has meant that trade delegates have struggled over the scope of goods and services that would be taken up for liberalisation. Further, while the aim of the EGS mandate is to liberalise, it provides no indication of the pace, depth or sequencing of liberalisation vis-à-vis ‘other’ goods and services. A major fault
line in the negotiations on environmental goods is the dispute over whether only goods intended solely for environmental protection purposes should be included as opposed to goods that may have both environmental and non-environmental uses. A number of developing countries are concerned about the inclusion of goods which they perceive as only vaguely linked to environmental protection. They are also worried about the import-led impacts of including a broad range of industrial goods on their domestic industries, employment and tariff revenues. In a broader context, a lack of movement on issues of interest to developing countries, particularly agriculture, also inhibits proactive developing country engagement on EGS negotiations.

Beyond the possible socio-economic impacts of EGS negotiations, it is essential to ensure that liberalisation of environmental goods, most of which are used for both environmental and non-environmental purposes, ultimately produce the environmental benefits intended by such disciplines.It is useful in this regard to examine and analyse relevant environmental indicators and the extent to which these are correlated with economic data and trade indicators on environmental goods. It is also important to understand the key drivers of trade in environmental goods so that the relative importance of tariff-liberalisation vis a vis other drivers can be weighed in relation to each other in various categories of environmental goods.

This paper by Dr. Veena Jha provides a reality check on these issues through rigorous empirical analysis and econometric modeling. The paper is also unique in that it tries to bring together environmental knowledge generated through the UNEP Global Environmental Outlook and relevant environmental performance indices with trade data on a set of 153 environmental that have informally been proposed for liberalisation by a group of WTO Members which may or may not be relevant in addressing these problems.

The paper assesses the extent to which countries and regions which suffer from various environmental problems trade in the set of these 153 environmental goods and the main factors driving such trade. In addition, it analyses the trends in dynamic comparative advantage enjoyed by the main exporters and importers of these goods-both developed as well as developing countries. Finally the paper also examines the implications of these findings in informing a meaningful negotiating strategy on environmental goods at the WTO.

Dr. Veena Jha is a Visiting Professorial Fellow at the Institute of Advanced studies, University of Warwick, UK, and a research fellow at the International Development Research Centre, Canada. In addition, she is the executive director of Maguru Consultants Limited, London, UK. She has worked with the United Nations in various capacities for over twenty years. She was the Coordinator of an important UNCTAD/ DFID/Government of India initiative on ‘Strategies and Preparedness for trade and Globalisation in India’. She has published twelve books on trade and development issues, articles in journals, and was a member of some consensus building initiatives on trade and environment issues in the last decade. She has been a member of several national and international Advisory Boards, notably the United Nations Secretary General’s Task Force on Millennium Development goals. She has served as an expert on technical committees of the Government of India, industry associations, and non-governmental organisations on trade and development issues.

The paper is part of a series of issue papers commissioned in the context of ICTSD’s Environmental Goods and Services Project, which address a range of cross-cutting, country specific and regional issues of relevance to the current EGS negotiations. The project aims to enhance developing countries’ capacity to understand trade and sustainable development issue linkages with respect to EGS and reflect regional perspectives and priorities in regional and multilateral trade negotiations. We hope you will find this paper to be stimulating and informative reading and useful for your work.