In response to many requests, the International Centre for Trade and Sustainable Development (ICTSD) is pleased to make available an information note which summarizes the key findings of its recent book “Intellectual Property and Sustainable Development: Development Agendas in a Changing World,” which was launched on 27th April 2010, at a side event during the last session of WIPO Committee on Development and Intellectual Property (CDIP).

The book, edited by Ricardo Meléndez-Ortiz and Pedro Roffe, was inspired by the dialogues and events sponsored by ICTSD globally since 2001, many of which were held in collaboration with the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) in the context of their joint project on intellectual property rights and sustainable development.

It brings together a selected number of papers by recognized experts in the field of IP and development initially produced for these dialogues, as well as those authored by rising scholars and policy-makers. The book’s ability to unite a diverse range of voices on issues that occupy a central space in today’s global policy debates is part of what sets it apart as a unique contribution to this field.

From a development perspective, a number of new and emerging IP issues are examined in this book as well. Case studies and experiences from Africa, Asia, and Latin America analyse the impact of IP on the pharmaceutical sector, the protection of life forms and traditional knowledge, geographical indications, access to knowledge, and the role of competition policy. Challenges developing countries face in the TRIPS-plus world are also addressed. The experiences revealed, as well as cyclical attitudes toward IP, show that there is ultimately no universal model of IP protection.

With the growing recognition that innovation is key for economic growth and development, developing countries are currently considering a range of policies to promote innovation; many of these import or adapt policies from other countries.
 
Multilateral discussions also stress innovation policies: The World Intellectual Property Organization’s (WIPO’s) Development Agenda emphasizes the need to promote creativity and innovation in developing countries (Recommendation 19), and to consider intellectual property (IP) policies that serve this end (Recommendation 25).
 
In this context, several developing countries, including India, Brazil, South Africa, Malaysia, and Jordan, are debating or have recently passed legislation modeled on the U.S. Bayh-Dole Act which facilitated patenting by American research universities.
 
As has been well documented by the proponents of Bayh-Dole type initiatives, since 1981, university patenting and licensing have increased dramatically, as has licensing income from university research. These data provide a main impetus for initiatives to emulate Bayh-Dole in developing countries.
 
The policy brief provides an assessment of one such bill, the Indian Bayh-Dole Act. It focuses on India because legislation is currently under consideration there; however, many of the issues considered are relevant for other developing countries.
 
It suggests that India—and other countries considering legislation of this sort—should provide specific guidance about what sorts of publicly funded research outputs ought to be patented, and what should instead be placed in the public domain.
 
The policy brief underscores the need to evaluate the positive and negative impact of Bayh-Dole type legislation and consider the range of other models and approaches that have evolved in the post-Bayh-Dole era, in response to these concerns.
 
The policy brief is also available at iprsonline.org

For countries seeking to design effective domestic or international climate change abating policy and incite mitigation, a solid understanding of the implications of greenhouse gas reduction policies for production incentives in agriculture and for international trade disciplines is imperative. From nearly twenty years of analysis and inquiry into the impact of human activity on climate and the effects of climate change on specific regions and economic sectors, we now know - albeit not at the level of detail and depth we need – that significant changes to agricultural production and trade are to be expected. The questions of how policies adopted to address climate change may affect agricultural production and how they relate to international trade rules are equally important and are also in need of further research.

This paper addresses these issues and makes the case for international trade rules that enable - rather than serve as obstacles to - sound policies to reduce agricultural greenhouse gas emissions. It also calls for climate change policies that do not lead to further distortions of the international agricultural trade system.

The ICTSD–IPC Platform on Climate Change, Agriculture and Trade is pleased to release this paper, trusting that it will contribute to a better understanding of these complex linkages and their treatment in the current negotiations in the international climate change and trade fora.

The purpose of this paper is to provide an overview of the existing international climate change agreements and the international negotiations underway and to point out the ways in which the agricultural sector – is – or may be – addressed in the international climate regulatory framework.  This overview is not intended to be a comprehensive analysis; rather it seeks to provide background information, outline options and identify areas which could usefully benefit from further analysis.  We emphasize the non-technical nature of the paper, which is mainly intended to inform stakeholders interested in agriculture, who may not yet be familiar with the climate change negotiations.  Readers are encouraged to refer to other sources, including those referenced here, for more detailed technical information.

The brief will examine the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), which entered into force in 1994, and the Kyoto Protocol to the UNFCCC, adopted in Kyoto, Japan, on 11 December 1997, that entered into force on 16 February 2005.  We then focus on options and proposals for addressing agriculture-related issues in the Bali Road Map, which is to conclude in Copenhagen in December 2009.
First, we present a very brief overview of key adaptation and mitigation findings.  Although more detailed and location-specific research is required, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) key findings on adaption were that while warming is expected to decrease yields in the tropical and sub-Saharan regions, yields may actually increase in temperate regions. Sub-Saharan Africa was singled out as a region where climate change may increase the amount of people at risk of hunger.  There are agricultural adaptation measures, such as changes in agricultural practices and relocation of agricultural production, but the report warned that adaptation will be very difficult in low latitudes if temperatures increase by more than 3°C.

The global effort to address climate change will require a fundamental transformation of our economies and of the ways in which we use energy. Addressing climate change requires the internalisation of carbon costs, which will have signifi cant effects on what we produce, where we produce, what we trade and how we trade. For international co-operation on climate change to be effective, international regulatory frameworks need to support this effort.

The current phase of negotiations under the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) is set to lay the groundwork for the necessary policy reforms, and will require concerted and cooperative efforts by individual countries, the business sector and civil society. Innovation – with regard to both the technologies of the future and the regulatory frameworks used to usher them in at the scale needed – will be key to the successful implementation of the Convention. In this context, both the global trade regime through the World Trade Organization (WTO) and regional trading arrangements may need to be moulded and reformed to support action on climate change. As negotiations accelerate in the lead-up to the Copenhagen meeting in December 2009 and beyond, trade-offs and trade-related issues have emerged as elements of the discussions. Some of the issues within the future climate regime will have direct repercussions on the trade realm, and need to be well understood and prepared for. In order to contribute to the debate, this paper provides information on the most salient and pressing policy linkages. It addresses issues in the climate-trade interface that are relatively well known as well as emerging areas that need to be further researched.

The debate on trade and climate change has often treated climate change and trade policies as either friends or foes. The approach adopted in this paper takes climate change as the entry point. It frames the discussion within the fi ve pillars of the Bali Road Map: i) the long-term vision, ii) mitigation of climate change, iii) adaptation to climate change, iv) technology and v) fi nancing. The paper examines the various trade and climate change policy interlinkages with a view to identifying a positive agenda for trade and trade policies to contribute to a successful global climate change agreement and its implementation.

Produced by ICTSD under its Global Platform on Climate Change, Trade Policies and Sustainable Energy, this paper includes contributions from ICTSD staff in the programmes on climate change and energy, intellectual property and innovation, agriculture and development.

The Global Platform is aimed at contributing to effective international co-operation towards addressing climate change. It does so by advancing analytical capacity of stakeholders and their interaction with policy makers such that effective solutions can be identifi ed and agreed by the international community at the Copenhagen Conference of the Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) in December 2009.

Gradual trade liberalisation and carefully managed market opening in these sectors can also be a powerful tool for economic development by generating economic growth and employment and enabling the transfer of valuable skills, technology and know- how embedded in such goods and services. In short, well-managed trade liberalisation in EGS can facilitate the achievement of sustainable development goals laid out in global mandates such as the Johannesburg Plan of Implementation, the UN Millennium Development Goals and various multilateral environmental agreements (MEAs).

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.

Developing countries are clearly interested in including, as part of ongoing WTO negotiations, products of export interest that could provide environmental benefits, export earnings and livelihoods to local populations. At the same time, many developing countries lack a comparative advantage in the so-called ‘traditional’ environmental goods and services that are reflected in lists developed by the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) and the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) and are often capital and technology-intensive. This has also led experts to point to environmentally preferable products (EPPs) as an export category worth consideration by developing countries. The global market size and export share of developing countries in these products is, however, still relatively small. There are also systemic concerns developing countries have with regard to environmentally preferable products, particularly in those cases where environmental benefits arise as a result of the process and production methods (PPMs).

Negotiations on environmental services have also not made much headway. The issue of classification of environmental services is important as it will set clear parameters on the types of services that are actually liberalised. The development of sound domestic regulatory frameworks in the environmental services sector is also an important pre-requisite to liberalisation. It is feared that lack of strong regulatory mechanisms in the environmental services sector, combined with the ‘public service’ dimension of a number of these services, would hinder developing countries’ ability to ensure that trade liberalisation in these services was compatible with sustainable development objectives such as universal and equitable access.

It is obvious that the economic and social dimensions of sustainable development will play as important a role as environmental ones in guiding WTO Members’ negotiating strategy on EGS. But these elements also need to be more clearly defined by each country taking into account domestic sustainable development priorities and concerns. WTO Members should respond to these priorities and concerns by negotiating appropriately-crafted language and numbers.

The reality, however, is that clear knowledge gaps exist on the various dimensions of trade in EGS as well as the methods and options by which countries can formulate a domestic and negotiating strategy on EGS. This EGS Policy Discussion Paper is an attempt to bridge some of the knowledge gaps in this area and facilitate strengthened engagement of developing countries in the EGS negotiations so that they can work towards an outcome meaningful for their sustainable development goals and priorities.

The EGS Policy Discussion 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.

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.

Developing countries are clearly interested in including, as part of ongoing WTO negotiations, products of export interest that could provide environmental benefits, export earnings and livelihoods to local populations. At the same time, many developing countries lack a comparative advantage in the so-called ‘traditional’ environmental goods and services that are reflected in lists developed by the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) and the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) and are often capital and technology-intensive. This has also led experts to point to environmentally preferable products (EPPs) as an export category worth consideration by developing countries. The global market size and export share of developing countries in these products is, however, still relatively small. There are also systemic concerns developing countries have with regard to environmentally preferable products, particularly in those cases where environmental benefits arise as a result of the process and production methods (PPMs).

Negotiations on environmental services have also not made much headway. The issue of classification of environmental services is important as it will set clear parameters on the types of services that are actually liberalised. The development of sound domestic regulatory frameworks in the environmental services sector is also an important pre-requisite to liberalisation. It is feared that lack of strong regulatory mechanisms in the environmental services sector, combined with the ‘public service’ dimension of a number of these services, would hinder developing countries’ ability to ensure that trade liberalisation in these services was compatible with sustainable development objectives such as universal and equitable access.

It is obvious that the economic and social dimensions of sustainable development will play as important a role as environmental ones in guiding WTO Members’ negotiating strategy on EGS. But these elements also need to be more clearly defined by each country taking into account domestic sustainable development priorities and concerns. WTO Members should respond to these priorities and concerns by negotiating appropriately-crafted language and numbers.

The reality, however, is that clear knowledge gaps exist on the various dimensions of trade in EGS as well as the methods and options by which countries can formulate a domestic and negotiating strategy on EGS. This EGS Policy Discussion Paper is an attempt to bridge some of the knowledge gaps in this area and facilitate strengthened engagement of developing countries in the EGS negotiations so that they can work towards an outcome meaningful for their sustainable development goals and priorities.

The EGS Policy Discussion 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.

At the end of September 2007, China - the country with the largest foreign exchange reserve in the world - hit a fresh record with a US$1.43 trillion reserve. The reserve was 45 percent higher than it was in the previous year, and 52 percent higher than that of the second runner up, Japan. A senior economist at the State Information Center of China said “The increasing trade surplus has been the main driver of the reserve expansion.” (China Daily 2007)

Thanks to its ceaselessly growing economy and successful transformation into a major merchandise supplier serving consumers worldwide, China ranked third in global trade terms (the sum of the absolute values of export and import) in 2005-2006 and is expected to be number two in 2007 (WTO 2006). China also has the largest trade surplus globally. During the first nine months of 2007, China’s trade surplus soared to US$185.7 billion, which already was higher than its total 2006 surplus that amounted to US$177.5 billion.

As the largest merchandise importer, the US has been a solid first at the opposite end, registering its largest trade deficit for decades. In 2006, the US trade deficit escalated to US$817 billion, of which as much as 28 percent related to its trade with China (see Figure1).

Although China’s currency has appreciated since last year (registering a 7.4 percent increase between 2006 and September 2007), the US-China trade deficit seems still to be growing. For example, the US monthly trade deficits with China during January and September of this year were between three and 34 percent higher than they were for the same months the year before.

CO2 emissions from China and the US

Although the US and China are at the opposite ends of the spectrum with respect to trade balance, the countries converge as the top two emitters of CO2 globally. In 2005, the US emitted 5,957 million metric tons of CO2 (MtCO2) followed by China’s 5,323 MtCO2. Together, their emissions make up 40 percent of the global total (see Figure 2). As the world’s largest fossil fuel producer and consumer, as well as the largest CO2 emitter, the US has been in the spotlight as the clear frontrunner. Since 2002, China’s annual growth of carbon emissions has taken off sharply, with growth rates ranging from 11 percent to 19 percent between 2002 and 2005. In June 2007, the Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency (MNP) announced that “according to preliminary estimates for 2006, China topped the list of CO2 emitting countries, surpassing the USA by an estimated 8 percent.” (MNP 2007). The 2007 edition of the International Energy Agency (IEA)’s Global Energy Outlook, released in November, confirmed that China will overtake the US as the world’s biggest emitter of CO2 before 2010. (IEA 2007).

The CO2 emissions associated with US-China trade

In the age of globalisation, are there linkages between trade and CO2 emissions? The answer is yes. Trade can include the transportation of more than one thinks: goods, services, capital, and also CO2 emissions.

According to the existing CO2 accounting framework, CO2 emissions resulting from the manufacture of a product are accounted for by the manufacturer/producer (in the country of origin) – not by the consumer (in the destination country). Therefore, when a country imports a product, it also “outsources” the related CO2 to the exporting country. In the case of the trade between the US and China, one can ask the following questions:

1) How much of China’s carbon is emitted to meet final consumer demand in the US?

2) What quantity of CO2 emissions has the US avoided emitting by trading with China?

3) What are the impacts of US-China trade on global CO2 emissions?

Shui and Harriss have tried to answer these questions. Their research is based on US-China trade data1 from 1997 to 2003 and an input-output approach2, and has produced some interesting preliminary results (Shui and Harriss, 2006). The following sections give an overview, and raises questions for the future.

CO2 embodied in exports/imports

During 1997 to 2003, the top ten Chinese products exported to the US mainly comprised computers and their peripheral equipment, electronics, toys and clothing. The top ten US exports to China were more diverse, ranging from soybean, aircraft, semiconductors and computer peripheral equipment to fertilizers, as presented in Table 1. The US trade deficit with China during the study period rose from US$49.7 billion to US$124.0 billion, with an annual growth rate of 16.5 percent. Mainly due to their large monetary value, the top five Chinese and US export products with the largest CO2 embodiment pretty much fall into the same categories as when ranked by their trade value. For example, audio and video equipment (27.4 MtCO2) and toys (25.7 MtCO2) were the two Chinese exports with the largest CO2 embodiment, and soybean (1.7 MtCO2) and plastics materials (1.1 MtCO2) were the US exports with largest associated CO2 embodiment. Table 2 illustrates the top five Chinese and American exports with the highest associated CO2 embodiment in 2003.

Shui and Harriss’s study also revealed that the CO2 embodiment of Chinese exports to the US has climbed from 213 MtCO2 in 1997 to 497 MtCO2 in 2003. This indicates that 6.8 percent and 13.3 percent of China’s CO2 in 1997 and 2003 were emitted to meet final demand in the US. The CO2 embodiment of US exports to China was insignificant, 10 MtCO2 in 1997 and 18 MtCO2 in 2003, accounting for 0.2 percent of the US’ annual CO2 emissions during the same period.

“Avoided” CO2 emissions in the US

It is well known that the US has suffered a vast trade deficit with China. The untold part of this story is that the US has avoided emitting a large amount of CO2 within its shores because of its trade with other countries, including China. Had the US manufactured the same quantity of products domestically, its reported CO2 emissions would be significantly higher than they are today.

The avoided CO2 emissions due to the US-China trade (compared to US production of the same quantity of goods domestically) are significant and growing, in line with growing US imports from China. The avoided CO2 emissions have risen from 150 MtCO2 in 1997 to 358 MtCO2 in 2003. The total avoided amount was 1,711 MtCO2 during this period, about six percent higher than the emissions of the world’s third largest CO2 emitter, Russia, in 2003.

The top three Chinese exports which brought about the largest avoided CO2 emissions for the US included audio and video equipment (21.2 MtCO2), games and toys (19.8 MtCO2), and computer peripheral equipment (15.0 MtCO2).

The impact of US-China trade on global CO2 emissions

The previous two sections have looked at the impacts of US-China trade on national emissions.

What is the impact of US-China trade at the global scale?

The CO2 embodiment in audio and video equipment, the largest Chinese export to the US in 2003, is 27.4 MtCO2. However, the CO2 embodiment in the same quantity of audio and video equipment produced in the US would be 21,2 MtCO2 – that is, 6.2 MtCO2lower. These figures suggest that CO2 emissions from the manufacturing of a product in China are higher than the CO2 emissions from producing the same product in the US, which is largely due to the relatively high use of coal and less efficient manufacturing technologies in the industrial sector in China.

Therefore, the “additional” global CO2 emissions resulting from US-China trade during 1997-2003 would be 720 MtCO2 in total, about 17 percent higher than Canada’s total CO2 emissions in 2003 (See Figure 3).

Concluding observations

Trade is a complicated and multifaceted issue. The economic, financial, political and social impacts of trade have been discussed at great length. Embodied carbon in trade is less well studied, and has remained rather “invisible” in current discussions of the linkages between trade and climate change. In the case of the two global top traders – the US and China – the monetary imbalance has fueled political and economic arguments. The embodied carbon of their trade flows has not quite established itself as a talking point for these top two carbon emitters. The huge US trade deficit does help it reduce its domestic CO2 emissions. For China, its rocketing trade surplus includes the cost of rising domestic and global carbon emissions.

There are now an increasing number of studies on carbon embodiment in trade. All indicate the significant role trade plays in national, regional and global CO2 emissions (Antweiler, 1996; Wyckoff and Roop, 1994; Muradian et al., 2002; Peters and Hertwich, 2006; Weber and Matthews, 2007). Quantifying carbon and other pollutants associated with international trade will shed light on opportunities and priorities for implementing emissions mitigation programmes such as the successors to the Kyoto Protocol.

Deepening globalisation has ensured a need to address the significance of the carbon dimension of trade if we are really serious about finding a way to confront climate change. Shui Bin is a researcher at the Joint Global Change Research Institute, USA, and Robert C. Harriss is president of the Houston Advanced Research Center,USA

Acknowledgement

The authors are grateful for the helpful reviews and comments received from Dr. Ronald D. Sands and Mr. Page G. Kyle at the Joint Global Change Research Institute.

References

1. Antweiler, W. (1996). “The pollution terms of trade.” Econ. Syst. Res. 8(4): pp 361-365.

2. China Daily (2007). “Foreign exchange reserves swell to US$1.43 trillion.” http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/bizchina/2007-10/13/ content_6171927.htm

3. IEA (2007). “The World Energy Outlook 2006 Maps Out a Cleaner, Cleverer and More Competitive Energy Future.” http://www.iea. org/textbase/press/pressdetail.asp?PRESS_REL_ID=187

4. MNP (2007). “Chinese CO2 emissions in perspective.” Retrieved August 16, 2007, from http://www.mnp.nl/en/service/ pressreleases/2007/20070622ChineseCO2emissionsinperspective. html.

5. Muradian, R., M. O’Connor, et al. (2002). “Embodied pollution in trade: estimating the ‘environmental load displacement’ of industrialised countries.” Ecological Economics 41(1): 51-67

6. Peters, G. P. and E. G. Hertwich (2006). “Pollution embodied in trade: The Norwegian case.” Global Environmental Change 16(4): 379-387.

7. Shui, B. and R. C. Harriss (2006). “The Role of CO2 Embodiment in US-China Trade.” Energy Policy 34(18): 4063-4068.

8. US Census Bureau (2007). “Foreign Trade Statistics.” http://www. census.gov/foreign-trade/www/

9. US Energy Information Administration (2007). “Total emissions from the consumption of energy.” http://www.eia.doe.gov/ emeu/international/carbondioxide.html

10. Weber, C. L. and H. S. Matthews (2007). “Embodied Environmental Emissions in U.S. International Trade, 1997-2004.” Environ. Sci. Technol. 41(14): 4875-4881.

11. WTO (2006). International Trade Statistics 2006.

12. Wyckoff, A. W. and J. M. Roop (1994). “The embodiment of carbon in imports of manufactured products: Implications for international agreements on greenhouse gas emissions.” Energy Policy 22(3): 187-194.

Endnotes

1 The data was provided by the US Department of Commerce.

2 One of main models used is called the Economic Input-Output Lifecycle Assessment (http://www.eiolca.net/about.html).

Chinese Version

This potential, however, has to be placed within the broader context of prevailing viability constraints that – if not addressed – will jeopardise the productivity and survival of the world’s fisheries and the millions of people that depend on them for their livelihoods. With three-quarters of fish resources already under threat, this prospect is becoming a reality in some parts of the globe. Fish trade – where it provides an incentive for increasing fishing efforts beyond sustainable limits in the absence of an effective management regime – clearly exacerbates these pressures. Similarly, fisheries subsidies that have enabled industrial fleets to exploit fishing grounds around the world have significantly contributed to global fish stock declines.

Trade policy can provide a range of tools to help take advantage of opportunities while mitigating some of the pressures. Eco-labelling, for instance, could provide necessary market advantage to compensate for investments in sustainable fisheries. Well-targeted subsidies could foster development of poor fishing communities provided that they do not lead to unsustainable fishing efforts. At the same time, if not designed well, these tools can undermine sustainable development objectives by encouraging over-exploitation, unnecessarily restricting trade and jeopardising livelihoods. Market standards and the use of safeguards continue to prevent the poorest countries in particular from taking advantage of trading opportunities. Fisheries access agreements, where they do not include adequate catch limits and enforcement mechanisms, can lead to the long-term decline of fisheries resources at the expense of local fishermen.

To ensure that fish trade indeed delivers on sustainable development objectives, policy-making at the multilateral, regional and local levels will need to reflect and balance the varied priorities and concerns. To date, however, the policy debate has been characterised by a fragmentation of issues, actors and perspectives. While negotiations on regulating fisheries subsidies have attracted considerable attention at the WTO, other areas with a direct bearing on the fisheries sector – such as market access, non-tariff barriers, and measures taken under multilateral environmental agreements – remain neglected and understudied. Policy responsibilities for the various aspects of the fisheries-trade interface are spread across different ministries and institutions with limited coordination between them. At the same time, many stakeholders – among them those with the greatest stake and interest in the debate, including fishermen, traders, conservationists and fisheries analysts – are frequently not heard and effectively integrated in policy formulation.

As part of the ICTSD project on International Trade, Fisheries and Sustainable Development, this Policy Discussion Paper aims to help 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. To this end, the paper provides a comprehensive assessment of the complex set of trade policy issues and tools that bear on the sustainability and development of the fisheries sector. It does so through the lens of sustainable development: How will trade policy tools such as tariffs, subsidies, standards or eco-labelling impact on the pursuit of public policy objectives related to social development, employment and food security? Under what conditions will these tools foster or undermine the long-term viability of fisheries resources? How will the use of the various policy tools influence countries’ ability to secure export revenues and preserve the profitability of the fisheries sector?

This paper is not meant to be an academic exercise nor does it propose specific recommendations; rather, it aims to provide a framework for those making and influencing policies to better understand and analyse how key trade policy issues and tools in fisheries relate to and impact on their sustainable development objectives. By providing a comprehensive yet applied basis for debate and analysis, the paper endeavours to help bridge the divide between the different communities and enable dialogue among the different actors and areas. We would like to encourage our readers to take this document as a starting point for further analysis of their specific fishery and country contexts which will provide the necessary basis for identifying their interests and priorities towards integrated policies and negotiating positions in this area.

We hope that you will find this Policy Discussion Paper to be stimulating and useful reading.