by Colin Sullivan, E&E reporter

UNITED NATIONS — This summer’s sustainable development conference in Brazil, known as Rio+20, is emerging as an overt attempt by U.N. officials to shift away from the divisive politics of climate change to a broader debate on the green economy and how to bring it to developing nations.

On the heels of arguably little movement on an international climate pact during U.N.-sponsored talks in South Africa, Mexico and Denmark, officials here now say they view Rio+20 as a way to get past intractable policy fights between developed and developing nations over greenhouse gas emissions cuts, to focus on core issues like trade and technology.

The head of Brazil’s delegation during the most recent talks, in Durban, South Africa, last week made it clear that his role in the Rio de Janeiro conference will be to press the conversation elsewhere. Sustainable development as part of an emerging new economy, not climate change, will be the featured attraction this summer, in what appears to be a directed strategy to enter new territory during U.N. negotiations.

“Climate change … has very strong resistance from sectors that are going to be substantially altered, like the oil industry,” Ambassador Andre Correa do Lago said. “Sustainable development is something that is as simple as looking at how we would like to be in 10 or 20 years.”

The diplomat went on to admit that the political situation in the United States is a key concern, as contenders for the Republican nomination to the White House have vied with each other over the past year to distance themselves from policies to trim greenhouse gases. Add to that Capitol Hill’s failure to deal with warming, as well as discord with more advanced developing nations like China and India, and what seems to be emerging here is a strong desire for a new approach.

Enter what they hope will be the new angle: Rio+20. The new tack in strategy was evident last week during a U.N. workshop on Rio, where senior U.N. trade officials met to start hashing through their “zero draft” document for trade proposals that could be on the table this summer.

Lucas Assuncao, a Brazilian at the U.N. Conference on Trade and Development and a key figure in pre-Rio talks, said U.N. officials are working fast to put together a “bold” trade proposal for Rio. Ideally, he said the zero draft would address “green protectionism” as well as trade opportunities, subsidies and finance for developing countries looking to expand renewables and other technologies.

“We do not yet have an international consensus on how to pursue a green economy,” he said during the trade workshop, adding that he would like to bring to Rio a “stronger” proposal on the subject that would help spur the green industrial economy.

‘Shift on par with the Industrial Revolution’

“We are talking about a shift on par with the Industrial Revolution,” he said. “We need to help the losers cushion losses and adjust, and to ensure that the poor and marginalized do not become more so.”

Assuncao says current language in the draft — a one-liner that says “create no trade barriers” — will do little to give countries guidance on how to become players in the green economy. “Many countries are pursuing sustainable development (in their eyes) by using trade barriers,” he said. “A one-line declaration won’t work.”

What the draft would address beyond that one-liner remains to be seen, with ideas from A to Z still on the table. Among the topics that could make the final cut for negotiations are proposals that would: prod nations to phase out fossil fuel subsidies, reduce trade barriers against energy-efficient technologies, end marine capture fishery subsidies and limit agricultural subsidies.

Most ambitiously, some say a sustainable energy trade agreement could emerge from Rio to address all these matters, in addition to governance, with one proposal suggesting the U.N. Environment Programme be given World Trade Organization-style authority to settle trade disputes.

Also possible is a clause on intellectual property rights, to address how countries might collaborate on patents to speed up deployment of green technologies. This area seems ripe, given recent news that economic espionage may be afoot between China and the United States related to wind turbine components (ClimateWire, Jan. 26).

Marianne Schaper, of the U.N. Department of Economic and Social Affairs, said how green trade commitments might be meshed with WTO rules, which are empowered by a range of regional and bilateral trade pacts, will be a key concern. She asked the following question during a presentation here, without supplying an answer: “Is the WTO rulebook sufficiently equipped to deal with [the green economy]?”

According to the International Centre for Trade and Sustainable Development (ICTSD), a group that tries to shape international trade to advance sustainable development, what should emerge from Rio to address these questions is a stand-alone sustainable free trade pact that could create authority aside from the WTO. ICTSD would like to see Rio produce “a plurilateral agreement either within or outside the WTO, including a critical mass of major economies and emitters,” Schaper said.

Also up for debate is an idea from Pakistan on a pact that would promote green industries in the developing countries by, in part, “reorienting [the] intellectual property regime towards diffusion of technology,” she said. And Switzerland wants the conference to look at value chains stretched across different countries, to create a framework for easing dissemination of environmental products.

An international ‘green’ trade agreement?

Among the ideas Schaper offered as “food for thought” is creation of a green trade forum at the United Nations to spark ideas about potential trade disputes related to green technology. She said the forum could look at restoring non-actionable subsidies in the WTO, taxation for “environmentally harmful activities,” how to enable transfer of technology and bilateral investment agreements.

“We have a lot of submissions,” she said of the zero draft document. “But nothing is concrete.”

To Assuncao, the current language in the zero draft is “too modest.” So he is taking feedback from diplomats at this point and hopes to go public in the months ahead with a more aggressive alternate.

The initial response from some of these far-reaching proposals seemed to be wariness. Laura Anderson, an international relations adviser at the U.S. Department of Agriculture, told Assuncao in an exchange that the WTO and the treaty that created it, the 1947 General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT), already have a system for resolving trade disputes, to include environmental matters.

“WTO has created rules and a committee to evaluate environmental aspects of trade” under GATT, she said. “They have been successful.”

Assuncao responded by saying U.N. officials “are trying to offer a bridge” between Rio and WTO. But he also admitted the Rio conference runs the risk of “having a big splash with conflict” if whatever emerges fails to get the two sides communicating.

Still, if there was a clear theme from Assuncao, it was the notion that WTO law “only gets us so far” on issues like subsidies, domestic content, green standards, investment agreements, intellectual property and border measures.

“The WTO does not solve everything,” he said, arguing that the WTO has no system for countries looking at “environmental externalities” beyond standard trade disputes. “There is too much uncertainty.”

He added: “They go there [to the WTO] not to think about the green economy. It’s just not created for that.”

More ICTSD in the news

JOHANNESBURG, 23 December 2011 (IRIN) - An exchange between two leading world officials on how trade affects food insecurity in countries has helped focus attention on the stalled Doha trade talks.

Olivier de Schutter, UN Human Rights Council’s Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food, says: “Food security is the elephant in the room, which WTO [the World Trade Organization] must address”, pointing out that food import bills had soared by a third for poor countries this year.

Schutter said developing countries should limit their reliance on international trade to ensure they had enough food and be able to put in place measures to beef up their own production and insulate themselves from global price shocks.

Pascal Lamy, director-general of the WTO, on the other hand, believes food security is central to the WTO’s Agreement on Agriculture (AoA),the world’s first treaty aimed at improving market access and reducing trade-distorting subsidies in agriculture and the Doha Round.

Measures such as temporary import restrictions, state purchases from small-scale farmers, allowing state-held food reserves, safety net insurance schemes and targeted farm subsidies could help, said Schutter, but WTO rules left little space for developing countries to implement them.

He said WTO members should convene a panel of experts to analyse whether existing WTO rules, and those being negotiated under the Doha Round were compatible with national and international food policies; assess the impact of trade liberalization on world food prices; and initiate talks at the WTO to take into account the long-term impacts of the 2007 global food price crisis for the international trade regime. (More details in his briefing note, The World Trade Organization and the Post-Global Food Crisis Agenda: Putting Food Security First in the International Food System )

Lamy points out that most experts, including those in the UN, agree that international trade is part of the solution.

Allowing developing countries to implement trade restrictive measures could hurt them the most, as, he said, “about 60 percent of developing countries’ agriculture exports go to other developing countries.”

Lamy agreed with Schutter on the need to ensure safety nets are in place to help the urban and rural poor, but he said the AoA provides developing countries with the room to implement policies in line with their national objectives through the use of certain subsidies.

Developing countries do not have to cut their subsidies or lower their tariffs as much as developed countries, and they are given extra time to complete their obligations under AoA. Poor countries don’t have to do this at all, he added.

The Doha Round could help to give developing countries more space by making it easier to maintain food reserves for food security purposes for instance, said Lamy. (More details on Lamy’s response )

Other views

Almost all economists, and even those within the UN, agree that trade is part of the solution and insulating domestic economies with trade restrictions might work in the short-term for a particular country but can have far-reaching repercussions for others in the region.

Economist Dirk Willem te Velde at the UK’s Overseas Development Institute (ODI) cited Tanzania’s export ban on maize in July as an example. “At that moment, Kenya would have wanted more trade rather than less in order to become more food secure.”

The Doha Round

The Schutter-Lamy debate has reopened issues around the Doha talks which have been going on, in stop-start mode, for the last 10 years.

“Two schools of thought are emerging”, said Jonathan Hepburn, the agriculture programme manager at the Geneva-based think-tank, International Centre for Trade and Sustainable Development: One says that “with Doha in limbo, high and volatile food prices, a changing climate, and growing world population, it made sense to begin discussing how trade relates to food security and other issues.

“The other - of concluding Doha first - is favoured by many developing countries who have invested scarce resources in maintaining missions and negotiators at the talks for 10 years.”

Economist Edward Clay of the ODI says: “Perhaps no one is actually able to admit that the Doha Development Round [DDR] is dead and so begin the discussion again with that openly conceded. That leads to the question what should be taken over from the DDR.”

He digs deeper: “Trade and food security is in effect a WTO issue, and so there is great frustration within the UN that this enormously restricts the role of, for example, the Food and Agriculture Organization-based Committee on Food Security: the key issues are not just discussed but actually negotiated elsewhere.

“Second, primarily allowing trade to address food security is somewhat in greater doubt in our current era of extreme food commodity market volatility.”

More ICTSD in the news

Von Alan Matthews

Der jüngste Gesetzesentwurf der EU-Kommission zur Reform der europäischen Agrarpolitik versucht erhebliche Subventionen für Europas Landwirte zu legitimieren, indem sie künftig an umweltfreundliche Anbaumethoden geknüpft werden. Allerdings sind die Vorschläge teurer als nötig und beseitigen nicht jene Praktiken, die Bauern in Entwicklungsländern schaden.

Laut den Plänen der EU-Kommission sollen Agrarsubventionen ab 2014 stärker an Umweltziele geknüpft werden, auf die EU-Bürger Wert legen. Dazu gehören Klimaschutz, ein besserer Umgang mit Agrarland und der Erhalt der Artenvielfalt.
Eine stärkere Förderung ökologisch nachhaltiger Agrarwirtschaft geht aber auf Kosten landwirtschaftlicher Erträge - zumindest in unmittelbarer Zukunft. Vorschläge zur Erhaltung von Dauergrünland, Diversifizierung von Anbaukulturen und Einrichtung ökologischer Schutzzonen werden die Produktion von Ackerkulturen, Schweinefleisch und Geflügel reduzieren.
Der Versuch der EU-Kommission, die ökologische Nachhaltigkeit der Landwirtschaft zu verbessern, ist ein willkommener Schritt. Doch der ökologische Nutzen dürfte gering sein - zu höheren Kosten als nötig. Die Forderung, dass alle Landwirte in der EU den gleichen Standards folgen sollen, ignoriert die Tatsache, dass Umweltbelastungen ungleichmäßig verteilt sind und einen zielgerechteren Ansatz erfordern.

In einer neuen Studie für das International Centre for Trade and Sustainable Development finde ich, dass unter den derzeitigen Plänen viele Direktzahlungen weiterhin nur schwach an ökologische Ziele gekoppelt wären - und wegen der Verknüpfung einiger Subventionen mit landwirtschaftlichen Erträgen wären Direktbeihilfen weiterhin weniger wirksam bei der Unterstützung landwirtschaftlicher Einkommen und brächten gleichzeitig unfairen Wettbewerb für Landwirte in anderen Ländern, einschließlich Entwicklungsländern.

Geplante Subventionskürzungen für Baumwollproduzenten in Griechenland und Spanien könnten die EU-Produktion leicht senken. Nichtsdestotrotz werden diese handelsverzerrenden Zuschüsse Bauern in Entwicklungsländern weiterhin benachteiligen. Eine Beseitigung der Zuckerquoten ließe trotz niedrigerer Preise die EU-Produktion steigen, wovon Länder, die von Zuckerimporten abhängen, profitieren würden. Sie könnte aber die Importe aus den afrikanischen, karibischen und pazifischen Ländern reduzieren, die derzeit von Präferenzabkommen zum EU-Markt profitieren.

Der mangelnde Ehrgeiz der Gesetzesvorlage der EU-Kommission ist enttäuschend. Mit den jüngsten Vorschlägen wird die Chance verpasst, verbleibende Handelsverzerrungen zu beseitigen, indem man Subventionen stärker an ökologische Ziele koppelt und produktionsabhängige Zahlungen beseitigt. Mitgliedstaaten und EU-Parlament haben nun, während sie über den Gesetzesentwurf beraten, die Gelegenheit, eine grünere und gerechtere Agrarpolitik zu gestalten - eine Agrarpolitik, die den EU-Bürgern Ergebnisse liefert, ohne Landwirte in Drittländern zu benachteiligen. Die Gelegenheit darf nicht verpasst werden.

More ICTSD in the news

By Agri-Pulse Staff

DURBAN, South Africa, Dec. 11 - Negotiators at the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) 17th Conference of the Parties found enough common ground to strike a deal on climate change, albeit one with plenty of details yet to be negotiated.

The decision puts the world on a path to negotiating a legal climate agreement - one that involves all major emitters including the US, India and China - that would enter into force in 2015, according to the International Centre for Trade and Sustainable Development (ICTSD). Participants agreed to replace the 20-year old system that required only industrialized nations to cut emissions.

The “Durban Platform for Enhanced Action” also commits parties to a second commitment for the Kyoto Protocol and provides a plan to advance implementation of the Cancun Agreement on financing, through the Global Climate Fund (GCF); technology; response measures; and reduced emissions from avoided deforestation, noted ICTSD.  However, the group says the package “falls short of expectations on the inclusion of agriculture in any long-range action.”

“Importantly, the agreement reaffirms the goal of capping global warming at a maximum of 2°C. However, it also notes with “grave concern” that current commitments will not meet that goal and launches a work plan that will help improve ambition on the issue,” ICTSD noted.

Negotiators did not agree on sources for the Green Climate Fund, which would include a promised $100 billion a year in public and private funds by 2020 to assist developing nations in adapting to climate change and the conversion to clean energy sources. The Fund would be managed by a 24 member board, composed of an equal number of developed and developing country members.

However, they did agree that the World Bank will serve as the interim trustee of the Fund for the first three years after its operationalisation. Washington had been pushing for the Bank to be designated as the trustee, insisting that the Fund must be managed by an international organisation with experience in managing funds globally, according to ICTSD.

In a statement released Sunday, Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi said that the Durban climate talks “have brought us to an important moment where all nations will be covered in the same roadmap toward a long-term solution for the climate crisis—the greatest challenge facing our planet.

“America must not wait to begin the hard work of achieving real reductions in carbon emissions, even as the negotiations to implement the Durban accord continue.  If we don’t delay, the United States will develop the technologies the world will use to address the crisis, and we will create jobs and strengthen our economy as a result.

More ICTSD in the news

By Kiranne Guddoy
In 2008, the EU concluded its first Economic Partnership Agreement with a group of member states’ former colonies. So far, this agreement has not made much progress.

The Caribbean Forum (Cariforum) is made up of the 15 members of the Caribbean Community and the Dominican Republic. Cariforum, so far, is the only regional organisation to have signed an Economic Partnership Agreement (EPA) with the European Union (EU). The EPA will come into force once all member countries have ratified it. Until then, Cariforum and the EU have pledged to provisionally apply the EPA. It was agreed in October 2008.

So far, this EPA is the only comprehensive agreement of its kind the EU has managed to conclude with the beneficiaries of the previous Lomé and Cotonou Conventions. These Conventions served to define the relations of the EU with some of its members’ former colonies in Africa, the Caribbean and Pacific (ACP countries) in the last decades of the 20th century. They were basically about the EU granting unilateral preferential status to ACP countries and incompatible with WTO rules, which is why new agreements are necessary.

The EPA between the EU and Cariforum was controversial when it was signed in 2008. It was the result of four years of intense negotiations. Some critics considered the EPA imperfect. On the other hand, many people recognised that it was necessary, hoping it would stimulate and enhance economic competitiveness in the Caribbean region.

Civil society groups as well as some academics in the region opposed the EPA. Their argument was that the rights and obligations the treaty defines are asymmetrical to the detriment of Cariforum members. It is true that Cariforum members mainly export primary commodities to the EU, including fuel, chemicals and agricultural products (mangoes, bananas, rice, rum, sugar), whereas the EU mostly exports machinery and other finished products to the Caribbean.

Cariforum member governments are responsible for drafting strategies to implement the agreement. The EU, in turn, is supposed to provide support for regional integration in the region, including for implementing the EPA and boosting private sector competitiveness. An Aid for Trade programme was designed to boost trade-related development assistance to over € 2 billion a year by 2010. That schedule has not been met.

Indeed, The EPA has hardly made progress so far. There are several reasons, including diverging opinions and even clashes among Cariforum members on the one hand and lack of action on behalf of the EU on the other. According to Junior Lodge, the technical coordinator for the CARICOM Office of Trade Negotiations, there are several major implementation bottlenecks, including
– the lack of human resources, funding and political will,
– the lack of coherence between EPA implementation and other economic policymaking in general (including multilateral trade negotiations) and
– the lack of dynamism in the regional integration process.
Cariforum is challenged by deep and unresolved differences between Caricom and the Dominican Republic. The process of EPA implementation, moreover, has proven to be inefficient and fastidious, requiring regular meetings of the Joint Council of EU and Cariforum. To attend these meetings at government level, Cariforum countries depend on support from the European Development Fund (EDF).
To date, only five Cariforum countries – Barbados, Belize, Grenada, Guyana and St. Kitts and Nevis – have started reducing their tariffs. The others are still preparing for such steps. Only Barbados, the Dominican Republic and Jamaica have set up EPA implementation units.

Ongoing discussions

No doubt, the global downturn after 2008 has contributed to stalling the EPA process. It is extremely difficult for the EU to mobilise the promised funds. While German and British agencies, for instance, are actively involved, more needs to be done. The 2008-13 EDF has earmarked € 143 million to further regional integration, support EPA implementation in the Caribbean and boost private sector competitiveness. However, the mode of delivery is still being discussed. Core issues include how to ensure aid effectiveness and timely delivery. Due to the lack of money, relevant agencies of the Caribbean nations remain understaffed and cannot work effectively.

In view of the global financial crisis and serious implementation challenges, it is unrealistic to expect the EPA to deliver structural change or a massive increase of foreign direct investment in a short period of time. Today, some of those who were in favour of the EPA argue that the most important aspect was to promote policy changes in the Caribbean. However, there has not been much change. Cariforum members, for instance, have hardly tackled the challenge of finding new forms of government revenue to replace the trade-related revenue they traditionally rely on.

Investment patterns have not changed much either. Only the Dominican Republic, Barbados and Trinidad and Tobago have managed to expand their service sectors and gain a foothold in new, high-value manufacturing. The other Cariforum countries have been unable to attract more foreign investment and trigger growth beyond tourism. Apart from the three countries just mentioned, only Jamaica, as a commodity exporter, has substantially benefited from the EPA. The agreement did not do much to help small countries diversify their economies and become more competitive at the global level.

The service sector is of particular relevance. It contributes over 50 % to GDP in most Caribbean countries, mainly due to the importance of tourism. Most Cariforum states have liberalised business services, tourism, entertainment, transport and telecommunication in line with the EPA rules. However, these steps so far have neither led to more staff of service companies from the Caribbean working in the EU nor to more foreign direct investment flowing into the Caribbean region. Officials at the Caricom Office for Trade Negotiations, however, say that market access to the EU is relevant to people from the Caribbean entertainment business, which is considered quite competitive.

Perhaps one should consider EPA implantation a long term exercise that will yet trigger a series of policy reforms. While many hopes have not come true yet, Cariforum countries certainly benefit from predictable and reliable market access to the EU. Duty-free-quota-free (DFQF) market access is a key feature of the EPA. Nonetheless, the EPA is overshadowed by various issues linked to poor institutional capacity and imperfect implement. Should these issues be overcome, the EPA could become a tool to expand business by exploring new market opportunities and deepen regional integration.
More ICTSD in the news

By William New

As governments meet to look for ways to progress on halting global climate change, some are suggesting more discussion is needed on the sharing of the technologies that can fight that change, and a middle ground approach has been put forward to get them there.

The Geneva-based International Centre for Trade and Sustainable Development (ICTSD) has released a new policy brief entitled, “Overcoming the Impasse on Intellectual Property and Climate Change at the UNFCCC: A Way Forward.“

The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) Conference of the Parties seventeenth session is being held from 28 November to 9 December in Durban, South Africa.

India also has put forward a document, FCCC/CP/2011/INF.2/Add.1 [pdf], that includes proposals on: accelerated access to critical mitigation and adaptation technologies and related intellectual property rights; equitable access to sustainable development; and unilateral trade measures. IP rights have been pushed aside in the recent UNFCCC meetings.

Technology transfer is a “pillar” of the UNFCCC, according to ICTSD, as Article 4.5 of the convention requires developed countries to: “take all practicable steps to promote, facilitate and finance, as appropriate, the transfer of, or access to environmentally sound technologies and know-how to other Parties, particularly developing country parties to enable them to implement the provisions of the Convention.”

The technology transfer issue was made a priority in the 2007 Bali Action Plan, adding the concept of affordability and measurability. The 2010 Cancun conference created a new Technology Mechanism with two main bodies: the Technology Executive Committee and the Climate Technology Centre and Network.

India argues that it is “essential” that this week’s meeting identify a forum and process to address these issues and find a way to keep them on the agenda in the future.

It says “a facilitative IPRs regime relating to climate-critical mitigation and adaptation technologies must form a cornerstone of a regime for advancing global actions to address climate change.” If the UNFCCC cannot advance the Bali road map, it said, then the issue must be reflected in the operational provisions of the Conference of Parties decision texts.

In Durban, India said, parties will “need to decide on a process and time frame that would best suit such a discussion.” It suggests launching a process under the Conference of Parties or in the Ad Hoc Working Group on Long-term Cooperative Action that requires it to come up with a “facilitative IPRs regime.” It also calls for “reintroducing the IPRs issue under the relevant AWG-LCA agenda item/process on technology.”

ICTSD Options

ICTSD, in its policy brief, stresses the urgency of establishing the basis for a “reasonable and balanced” discussion about IP and climate change technologies if there is to be effective international action against climate change.

Though the authors say it is “unlikely that in-depth substantive discussions on IPRs and climate change can take place at the Durban conference,” they say the gathering could “redefine the parameters and principles for a more technical and expert-level discussion, which could then take place under the UNFCCC framework.”

Discussions could occur under a “contact group on intellectual property” with a range of stakeholders including the private sector and civil society, which could focus attention on the issues that need to be addressed. They suggest moving on an “incremental” and gradual basis, starting with the non-controversial issues, later moving to options that “involve the use of IPRs and licensing as well as pooled procurement strategies.”

Getting these issues on track, they said, could contribute to “greatly increased public investments in both basic and applied research pertaining to green technologies.” It also could ensure all countries have affordable access to technologies, whether patented or not.

The paper highlighted the need for better information to better track patents related to these areas, and to find ways to encourage licensing options to middle income countries. Other suggestions in nuanced form are to expedite examination of green patent applications, build capacity in technology licensing agreements for developing countries, use patent pools and pooled procurement strategies, and use flexibilities to IP law available in international trade rules.

ICTSD lays out suggested parameters and principles in the paper. They are listed below.

Background

In the paper, the authors address three aspects that have continued to arise in the intergovernmental discussions: the parallel with and differences from access to medicines; IP rights as an incentive to innovation and as it impacts technology transfer and dissemination; and lessons from available empirical evidence.

The brief offers several “principles and parameters” for technical and expert-level discussion that can provide a middle ground for future work on these issues.

Despite some unanswered questions, ICTSD said the existing work in UNFCCC has the potential to become a “springboard for developed and developing countries to work together in order to accelerate the deployment and transfer of technologies for climate change mitigation and adaptation.”

Intellectual property rights has been a “constant source of controversy and disagreement among UNFCCC parties and stakeholders,” ICTSD said, noting the polarisation that has occurred. But the issue of IP rights has been considered for years, it notes, with a reference in the 1992 Earth Summit, among others.

Meanwhile, ICTSD notes from an analysis of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) that patenting on clean energy and green technologies has rapidly shot up in recent years, and that six countries - Japan, the United States, Germany, Korea, the United Kingdom and France - accounted for almost 80 percent of patent filings in the area. Another study showed emerging economies increasing the number of these patents as well. But such patents are rare in low income countries.

And a survey of licensing showed that most respondents had not licensed in developing countries, suggesting that technology transfer needs a boost.

ICTSD concluded by listing key elements of the past debate on IP and technology transfer, validating both sides’ concerns, and builds a platform for future discussion. For instance, it said there could be a first package of “practical” and “technical” measures to build trust, and a second stage exploring the “complexity and diversity of policies, mandates, and concerns” in the negotiations.

The ICTSD paper was authored by Ahmed Abdel Latif and Pedro Roffe of ICTSD, Prof. Keith Maskus of the University of Colorado at Boulder, Ruth Okediji of the University of Minnesota Law School, and Jerome Reichman of Duke University School of Law.

———-

“What might be the procedural parameters and principles to guide these technical discussions? What further measures could be taken up? The following are some suggestions:

I- Procedural parameters

a) Discussions should be informed to the extent possible by empirical evidence and concrete examples.
b) The outcome of discussions should not be prejudged.

II- Principles
a) Recognition of the importance of IP protection in promoting clean energy innovation;
b) Emphasis that the global IPRs regime should facilitate the transfer and diffusion of climate technologies and ensure affordable access to them;
c) Balance between these twin goals of IPRs - protection and dissemination - in discussion outcomes, with an explicit focus on the unique role of IPRs in the context of public goods;
d) Recognition of any IPR-related barriers to the transfer of climate technologies to developing countries in specific cases;
e) Call for more empirical evidence regarding possible impact of IPRs on the transfer of climate technologies to developing countries by technology, sector, and country;
f) Consideration of all options within the framework of existing international instruments, including the rights, obligations, and flexibilities contained therein.

III- Towards an incremental and gradual approach
a) Discussions could begin by examining a first package of “practical” and “technical” measures to build trust, such as:
i. Improving availability of patent information on climate-related technologies;
ii. Improving availability of technological information in the public domain;
iii. Encouraging more favorable licensing terms of climate technologies to developing countries, including those resulting from publicly funded research;
iv. Fast tracking of ‘green’ patent applications.
b) A second stage of the discussions could follow that would focus on exploring possible options for addressing the complexity and diversity of policies, mandates, and concerns that feature in the climate negotiations. Some suggestions in the literature include:
i. open innovation in green technologies;
ii. patent pools based on voluntary licensing and other sharing arrangements;
iii. creative uses of existing flexibilities in international instruments, including the possibility of pooled procurement strategies;
iv. consideration of alternative intellectual property regimes, especially liability rules, for possible use in stimulating both local innovation in developing countries and the adaptation of green technologies available on the world market.”

More ICTSD in the news

Aktuella frågor.EU-kommissionens förslag till reformerad jordbrukspolitik ger små miljöfördelar till högre kostnader än nödvändigt, skriver Alan Matthews, professor emeritus i europeisk jordbrukspolitik vid Trinity College i Dublin.

EU-kommissionen offentliggjorde nyligen ett förslag till reform av unionens jordbrukspolitik som innebär fortsatt stora stöd till Europas jordbrukare.

För att ge subventionerna legitimitet kommer utbetalningarna att knytas till miljövänliga jordbruksmetoder. Förslaget skulle leda till högre kostnader än nödvändigt och även fortsättningsvis innehålla element som skadar jordbrukare i utvecklingsländer genom att utsätta dem for ojuste konkurrens.

Enligt kommissionens planer ska jordbruksstödet från och med 2014 knytas mera till miljömål som är viktiga för EU:s medborgare - såsom klimat, bättre markanvändning och bevarandet av den biologiska mångfalden.

Prioriteringen av ekologiskt hållbart jordbruk i Europa kommer att ske till priset av minskad jordbruksproduktion, åtminstone inom den närmaste framtiden. Förslagen som går ut på att jordbrukarna ska upprätthålla permanent betesmark, diversifiera sina grödor och avsätta ekologiska “fokusområden” kommer att minska EU:s produktion av jordbruksgrödor, fläsk och fjäderfä.

I en ny studie för det internationella centret för handel och hållbar utveckling, ICTSD, i Genève visar jag att de nya gröna förslagen skulle innebära extra kostnader på upp till fem miljarder euro för Europas jordbrukssektor. En del av kostnaderna kan jordbrukarna få igen genom högre konsumentpriser.

Det är rätt och riktigt av EU-kommissionen att förbättra miljöaspekterna i jordbrukspolitiken. Det nya reformförslaget kommer dock att ge mindre miljöfördelar till en högre kostnad än nödvändigt.

Kravet på att alla jordbrukare inom unionens 27 medlemsländer följer samma normer förbiser att miljöproblemen är ojämnt fördelade och skulle kräva mer målinriktade strategier.

Enligt förslaget kommer många stöd att ha svag koppling till miljömålen - och eftersom vissa stöd förblir knutna till produktion blir de även fortsättningsvis mindre effektiva som inkomststöd. Samtidigt leder de till orättvis konkurrens med jordbrukare i andra länder, inklusive utvecklingsländerna.

De små nedskärningar som planeras i stöden till bomullsproducenter i Grekland och Spanien kan leda till en något minskad produktion i EU. Men dessa stöd skulle ändå fortsätta att missgynna jordbrukarna i västafrikanska länder och andra utvecklingsländer.

Även om planerna på att avskaffa sockerkvoterna är välkomna så kommer sockerproduktionen i EU att öka. De vinster som industrin hittills fått till skänks kommer att naggas i kanten. Detta skulle bidra till att sänka världsmarknadspriset för socker, som för närvarande är högt, vilket skulle gynna länder som är beroende av sockerimport.

Men avskaffandet av sockerkvoter kan samtidigt leda till minskad import från Afrika, Västindien och Stillahavsområdet, som hittills kunnat exportera till EU på gynnsamma villkor.

EU-kommissionens förslag till reform av unionens jordbrukspolitik brister i ambition. Det innebär en förlorad chans, eftersom det kunde ha gjort slut på snedvridningar av handeln genom att binda utbetalningarna mera direkt till miljömål och genom att gradvis avsluta det produktionsbaserade stödet.

När medlemsstaternas regeringar och Europaparlamentet nu tar ställning till kommissionens planer har de chansen att utforma en grönare och rättvisare jordbrukspolitik, en politik som är i samklang med EU-medborgarnas intressen och samtidigt undviker att skada jordbrukare utomlands.

Det är en möjlighet de bör ta tillvara.

More ICTSD in the news

By Philip Egea Flores

Den ny regering er de seneste uger begyndt at samle ligesindede regeringer bag en idé om en ‘grøn’ frihandelsaftale for en mindre kreds af lande. Danmark vil bruge EU-formandskabet på at promovere ideen, der lanceres på et WTO-møde i december.

Danmark vil ikke længere vente på en global aftale, der kan fremme både den vedvarende energi og de danske planer om et massivt sats på grøn teknologi, lyder det nu fra regeringen.

Handelsminister Pia Olsen Dyhr (SF) har de seneste uger været i kontakt med en række kolleger i andre lande og bl.a. fået opbakning fra de nordiske regeringer til at lancere en idé om en ‘grøn’ frihandelsaftale ved det kommende WTO-møde.

Den danske regering gør sig — med henvisning til den stagnerede såkaldte Doha-runde, der er et langstrakt forsøg på at skabe bedre betingelser for global frihandel — ingen illusioner om at kunne samle alle lande, og vil derfor i stedet samle en »udbrydergruppe«, der kan gå forrest.

»Vi har i virkeligheden meget få spilleregler på den internationale scene, der gør det muligt at handle med grønne produkter, og når nu olielandene har deres OPEC, hvorfor skulle vi så ikke kunne have noget lignende for den grønne energi«, siger Pia Olsen Dyhr.

»Doha-runden ruller ikke ligefrem hurtigt fremad, men samtidig er der en stigende, international forståelse for, at klimakrisen og finanskrisen hænger sammen. Derfor vil regeringen i forbindelse med ministermødet i december og i forbindelse med vores EU-formandskab arbejde for en plurilateral frihandelsaftale,« siger hun.

Op til COP15 diskuterede man en Sustainable Energy Trade Agreement (SETA), der bl.a. omfattede en liberalisering af miljø- og klimavenlige varer og tjenesteydelser og dertil eksempelvis regulering af staternes offentlige indkøb.

Det er SETA, der ligger til grund for den danske handelsministers forslag, og udover positive tilkendegivelser fra en række lande samarbejder regeringen med den internationalt respekterede tænketank ICTSD.

Den ledes af Ricardo Meléndez-Ortiz, der i sin tid stod i spidsen for den såkaldte Uruguay-runde fra 1986-1994, der er årsagen til, at WTO overhovedet eksisterer.

Og både timingen og fremgangsmåden kan være den helt rigtige, mener cheføkonom i Concito, den største danske klimatænketank, Frans Clemmensen.

»COP15 viste, at det var svært at få alle med, og vi må nok erkende, at den eneste måde at få hul på bylden vil være, at nogle lande går foran,« siger han og påpeger, at Danmarks EU-formandskab kan få betydning.

»EU har før med CO2-mål og etableringen af et fælles kvotesystem givet eksempler på, at afgrænsede, multilaterale aftaler kan være rigtigt gavnlige, fordi de baner vejen for andre,« siger Frans Clemmensen og fortsætter: »Hvis USA og EU kan finde fælles holdninger, kunne man desuden muligvis presse kineserne. Kina har løbet på frihjul i klimakampen, fordi de har kunnet drage fordel af, at energitunge virksomheder flytter ud til dem, så for at lægge pres på Kina skal man bruge handelsmæssig pression, og en frihandelsaftale kunne eksempelvis begrænse deres mulighed for at sælge varer til os, hvis de ikke går med,« siger han.

Lettere at eksportere

Handelsminister Pia Dyhr Olsen vil ikke præcist udpege hvilke og hvor mange lande, der skal til, for at det giver mening.

»Når man taler om en kritisk masse af lande, skal det også være lande, der er væsentlige aktører — eksempelvis BRIK-lande — og så skal der være en balance mellem udviklede og ikke-udviklede lande. Det skal ikke bare give mening eksportmæssigt, men også størrelsesmæssigt, for at det senere skal betyde noget for WTO-systemet,« siger hun og peger som forbillede bl.a. påTRIPS-aftalen for medicinproduktion og teknologioverførsel, der ligeledes blev iværksat som en parallelaftale til Doha-runden.

»Den har indbygget, at der både er fordele for udviklede lande og udviklingslande. For Danmark, der har en interesse i at kunne eksportere grøn energi og teknologi, ville en frihandelsaftale formentlig også betyde, at vi måtte forpligte os på noget teknologi- og informationsoverførsel,« siger hun og peger på nogle andre af de konkrete elementer, der kunne indgå i en frihandelsaftale.

»Der skulle bl.a. strammes op på, at nogle lande giver subsidier til specifikke virksomheder, som de ved skal ud og klare sig i den globale konkurrence, og der er et spørgsmål om tekniske standarder. Og så er der nogle lande som Kina, der i dag kun vil give adgang til eksempelvis særlige jordarter, hvis man producerer tingene i landet, men som til gengæld har brug for lettere adgang til det europæiske marked. Der kan gøres meget for at skabe et setup, der gør det lettere at eksportere til hinanden,« siger hun.

I Dansk Industri er afsætningspolitisk chef Peter Thagesen begejstret, og han peger på endnu et helt centralt element, der kunne indgå i en aftale.

»Man skal fortsat kæmpe for en global aftale, men vi er stærke tilhængere af, at nogle lande kan gå forrest, og et meget konkret redskab kunne være at blive enige om at reducere toldtaksterne, så man fremmer handel med det grønne. For Danmark er det ikke bare forretningsmæssig sund fornuft, men det vil desuden være den rigtige måde at vækste på,« siger Peter Thagesen.

Han er mere usikker på, om der er tilstrækkeligt mange lande, der er ‘modne’ til at indgå en aftale.

»Når man lytter til den danske debat, tror man, vi er de eneste, der satser på det her område, men selv om vi er dygtige, er vi i knivskarp konkurrence, og rigtig mange lande vil nyde godt af en frihandelsaftale. Men fremme af handel med miljørigtige varer har faktisk været en del af Doha-runden længe, og det har også der vist sig at være svært at nå til enighed,« siger han.

Men pointen er netop, at det danske udspil ikke lægger op til, at alle behøver at være med, påpeger Pia Dyhr Olsen.

»Der er virkelig behov for en sådan aftale, for der er allerede begyndt at opstå konflikter, i takt med at der pludselig er begyndt at være konkurrence på miljøteknologien. Gør man ikke noget nu, tror jeg, det her bliver fremtidens handelskrig. Det bliver den nye olie.«

More ICTSD in the news

by Stan Abrams, China Hearsay

It’s no secret that the U.S., specifically certain American industries and their champions in the U.S. government, are less than pleased with the state of intellectual property rights enforcement in China. The big players here include pharmaceutical companies, the entertainment industry, and software developers.

What are their options? One line of attack is through multilateral negotiations and use of multilateral organizations, like the WTO. These industries were instrumental in having IP rights included in the trade agenda in the 1990s via the Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPs) Agreement. This was part of the grand bargain struck between developed and developing nations when the WTO was established. The promise: we’ll throw you a bone when it comes to areas like agriculture if you’ll agree to tougher IP laws and market access for services (e.g. banking and finance).
Some would argue that the developing countries are still waiting to this day for that promise to be fulfilled, but that’s a subject for another post. On the IP side, those Member States adopted TRIPs and agreed to the minimum standards established under that agreement. As other countries joined WTO, including China, they also agreed to uphold TRIPs.

The problem with that, from the industry perspective, is that TRIPs sort of froze everything in time. Sure, the agreement forced many developing countries to upgrade their legal systems. China, for example, engaged in a sweeping change of its IP laws in the late 90s/early 2000s, including amendments to the trademark, copyright and patent laws.

All well and good, but industry did not get everything it wanted, and going back to the WTO and getting that consensus-driven body to adopt tougher standards in a future negotiating round has proven impossible. Indeed, we’ve been stuck in the next negotiating round (Doha) for many years now, with no end in sight.

So much for the WTO. But if industry is not happy about IP in China, what else can be done? Well, there’s always bilateral negotiation, and certainly whenever the U.S. and China get together for official talks, intellectual property issues are high on the agenda. Several notable victories have been made over the past few years, including the fairly recent debate over China’s “indigenous innovation” policy, which has been revised to reflect industry concerns.

However, bilateral negotiations can only get you so far. Certainly the pharmaceutical, entertainment, and software industries (among others) have had agenda items hanging out there for years, with no indication that their wishes will be granted by Beijing, notwithstanding pressure by the U.S. government.

So much for bilateral talks. Any other options? If multilateral and bilateral solutions aren’t working, there is always the regional option. If the entire WTO membership won’t play ball, and China refuses to accede to demands by itself, what about a regional solution?

Enter the Trans-Pacific Partnership:

Ongoing trade negotiations involving the United States and eight other Pacific Rim nations have come under increasing scrutiny for the intellectual property provisions being discussed, amidst concerns that they could lead to higher drug prices, harming public health and access to medicines in developing countries.

The objective of the TPP is to establish a free trade agreement among the United States, Australia, Brunei, Chile, Malaysia, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore, and Vietnam. Five rounds of negotiations have taken place since March 2010; still in its early stages, the TPP has been the subject of growing global interest (Bridges Weekly, Volume 15, Number 10, March 23 2011).

What’s the plan here? The U.S. has a history of entering into bilateral and regional trade agreements and including IP provisions that are tougher than TRIPs standards. This is usually referred to as “TRIPs plus” and includes issues like data exclusivity and patent linkage (for the drug industry) and extension of copyright protection (for the entertainment industry). The U.S. strategy has been criticized in the past as utilizing unequal power to foist industry-driven legal reforms on developing countries.

In other words, the U.S. couldn’t get certain reforms past the entire WTO membership, but perhaps it can pick off developing nations via bilateral, or alternatively regional, trade agreements. This is one of the issues surrounding the TPP negotiations.

The language recently released by USTR gives a clue to where negotiations are at this point:

TPP countries have agreed to reinforce and develop existing World Trade Organization Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property (TRIPS) rights and obligations to ensure an effective and balanced approach to intellectual property rights among the TPP countries. Proposals are under discussion on many forms of intellectual property, including trademarks, geographical indications, copyright and related rights, patents, trade secrets, data required for the approval of certain regulated products, as well as intellectual property enforcement and genetic resources and traditional knowledge.

First, note that the goal is to “reinforce and develop” TRIPs, which is as close to a direct reference to “TRIPs+” that we’re going to get. It means provisions that raise TRIPs standards and make further progress on issues important to U.S. industry.

Second, the list of areas under discussion not only include the ones driving the discussion (copyright, patents, trade secrets and data protection), but also throws in other IP issues that are important to developing countries (genetic resources and traditional knowledge).

Third, there has obviously been some pushback on the U.S. agenda, otherwise we would not be seeing language like “balanced approach” and some of those line items mentioned above. Cautionary comments from one nation, New Zealand, have already been leaked to the public (read it here).

What does all this have to do with China? After all, the TPP negotiations do not include China at the moment, and many have characterized the U.S. move as a way to coalesce regional support behind the U.S. as an alternative to China, a rising Pacific power. Indeed, much of the coverage of the TPP in the past couple of weeks has focused on defense issues.

But even if China never becomes a member of TPP, such a regional agreement would have a significant effect on international IP standards. If the U.S. is successful in getting all of these nations to sign off on TRIPs+ provisions, then those standards become more widely recognized internationally.

For example, if the TPP includes a minimum copyright protection period of 70 years (many nations only have a 50-year period), the U.S. could at some point bring this up in bilateral negotiations with China, essentially saying “Hey, why are you guys holding out on this issue? All the other nations around you already changed their copyright laws. Why are you the only hold out?”

In effect, when it comes to the TPP, U.S. strategy may include not only the military containment of China, but also a legal encirclement with respect to IP laws.

More ICTSD in the news

By Andrew Burger

Governments around the world have been busy enacting controversial, so-called “Free Trade Agreements,” since Canada, Mexico and the US passed the still-controversial North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) back in 1994.

Putting a “green” twist on the concept, the International Centre for Trade and Sustainable Development (ICTSD) is advocating the enactment of Sustainable Energy Trade Agreements to speed up the development and adoption of renewable energy and clean technology globally.

Supplementing government policies such as feed-in tariffs and tax credits, Sustainable Energy Trade Agreements (SETAs) could function as integral facets of such pro-sustainable energy policy frameworks, according to the ICTSD’s “Fostering Low Carbon Growth: The Case for a Sustainable Energy Trade Agreement.”

A global agreement enacted by the World Trade Organization (WTO), or perhaps the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) that lowers trade barriers to market access for sustainable energy goods and services across all members would raise the potential for SETAs to a maximum, speeding up a transition to low-carbon transport fuels and technologies. “Lowering the costs of equipment and services used to produce sustainable power could also play a critical role in facilitating the scale up process,” the report’s authors write.

Barriers to Sustainable Energy Trade Agreements

On the other hand, governments can, and in some cases have, raised trade barriers that limit access to sustainable energy goods and services in the interest of domestic job creation and economic stimulus. Trade in sustainable energy goods and services can also be held back by “diverse or conflicting technical standards,” the report’s authors note.

A case in point is the recent filing of a petition by Solarworld AG and six other US solar panel manufacturers with the US Dept. of Commerce and International Trade Commission (ITC). The petition asserts that Chinese solar module manufacturers are the beneficiaries of illegal government subsidies that tilt the terms of trade in their favor and are in effect, dumping solar panels in the US market at below cost. Imposing a 100 percent duty on the price of imported solar panels from China was proposed as a penalty.

Significantly, a global institutional framework that brings together trade, energy and climate-related regulatory policymakers necessary to hashing out sustainable energy and policies is lacking, they add.
Breakdowns in WTO negotiations addressing trade in environmental goods and services, as well as efforts by the UNFCCC to enact a successor to the Kyoto Protocol, illustrate the point.

Nonetheless, “effectively addressing these market barriers will require a holistic and integrated approach that may not be feasible within the present framework of trade, energy, and climate-related regulatory barriers and institutions,” according to the ICTSD report’s authors.

“This is because of various institutional and context-specific reasons, such as the fragmented and ambiguous nature of many existing World Trade Organization (WTO) agreements and rules, lack of effective and operational provisions both within and outside the WTO in several cases, and even the non-inclusion of key countries that matter within existing regulatory frameworks on trade as well as energy.”

De-Carbonizing World Energy Production & Use

The report’s authors suggest that such hurdles could be surmounted by considering a Sustainable Energy Trade Agreement on a standalone basis by the WTO, or one that “could be initially pursued as a plurilateral option, either within or outside the WTO framework.”

“De-carbonizing” energy production and use across economies globally calls for “the deployment of energy efficiency measures in both conventional power generation and end-use sectors, such as buildings, industry and transport,” according to the ICTSD report, as well as proactive deployment of cleaner, low-carbon fuels and technologies.

The challenge is particularly daunting in light of growing worldwide energy demand and population, particularly as countries with developing economies are the major drivers of growth in both. Fully half the world’s population has no access to modern forms of energy, while 75 percent of the increase in global GHG emissions came from the developing world, the report’s authors point out.

On the other hand, developed OECD countries that continue to produce 40 percent of global GHG emissions though their populations make up just one-fifth of the global population.

Limiting a global rise in mean temperature to the 2 degrees Centigrade (3.5 degrees Fahrenheit) maximum agreed to by international climate agreement negotiators is going to be extremely difficult, they write.

The use of fossil fuel energy sources in buildings, industry and transport accounted for 70 percent of global greenhouse gas emissions, according to a 2004 report, while the International Energy Agency (IEA) reported that such emissions reached a record high of 30.6 giga-tonnes (Gts) in 2010.

In order for the “pathway to be achieved, global energy-related emissions in 2020 must not be greater
than 32 Gt,” according to the ICTSD. “This means that over the next ten years, emissions must rise less in total than they did between 2009 and 2010.”

Moreover, they added, fossil fuels, which currently account for about 80 percent of emissions worldwide, and existing infrastructure and projects in construction already locked in to 2020 add approximately 20 percent of those emissions.

SETAs: A New, Fresh Approach

Establishing the means to negotiate and successfully enact SETAs offers a “fresh approach” to forging a global consensus and common platform for action that could provide a much-needed catalyst to sustainable adoption, the ICTSD asserts.

“A Sustainable Energy Trade Agreement (SETA) could be a way to bring together countries interested in addressing climate change and longer term energy security while maintaining open markets,” the report authors write. “Numerous possible pathways could be conceived for such an agreement in terms of structure, as well as the scope of issues and market barriers to be addressed.

“A SETA could be a stand-alone plurilateral agreement similar to the Government Procurement
Agreement (GPA) at the WTO. Alternatively, it could extend concessions on a most favoured nation
(MFN) basis to all WTO members, similar to the Information Technology Agreement (ITA), with such
an extension made conditional on the accession of a ‘critical mass’ of members based on various
trade, climate, or energy-related criteria.

“A SETA could also be conceived as a stand-alone plurilateral agreement outside of the WTO, the
advantage in this case being that membership would also be open to other, non-WTO members.
There could also be a possibility of eventually incorporating such an agreement into the WTO
framework at some point in the future. If concluded outside the WTO, members would need
to clarify the agreement’s relationship with existing WTO rules and agreements, including with
regard to any dispute settlement mechanisms.”

More ICTSD in the news