ICTSD’s Programme on Dispute Settlement will be exploring this link during a meeting on “Environmental and Trade Law - Coherence and Conflicts” to take place on 12 November, 2010 at 12:30 at the WTO.

Professor Pieter Jan Kuijper from Amsterdam University will present a recent ICTSD study on “Conflicting Rules and Clashing Courts: The Case of Environmental Agreements, Free Trade Agreements and the WTO”.

Benjamin Simmons from UNEP and Kirsten Hillman from the Canadian Mission to the WTO will respond to this presentation and the recommendations of the study with special reference to two relevant examples: Climate change litigation and experiences from the Tuna case.

AGENDA

12:30 LUNCH (provided)

13:00 WELCOMING AND INTRODUCTORY REMARKS BY ICTSD

13:15     Presentation of ICTSD Research

Pieter Jan Kuijper (Amsterdam University)
Conflicting rules and clashing courts

13:45     Discussants

Benjamin Simmons (United Nations Environment Programme)
The WTO and litigating climate change

Kirsten Hillman (Permanent Mission of Canada to the WTO)
FTA’s, the WTO and the environment: The latest Tuna case

OPEN DISCUSSION

For registration please contact ICTSD’s Dispute Settlement Programme at mwojtczuk@ictsd.ch

To access the study, please click here.

Garantizar la coherencia entre los objetivos y las disposiciones de la Convención sobre la Diversidad Biológica (CDB), como las relacionadas con el acceso a los recursos genéticos y la distribución de beneficios, y las normas sobre patentes y variedades vegetales previstas en el Acuerdo sobre los ADPIC, han llevado a repetidos llamamientos para la reforma.

Los países ricos en biodiversidad han sido los principales solicitantes de una reforma que incorpore una serie de garantías en el régimen de patentes contra el acceso ilegal y el uso  de los recursos genéticos y conocimientos tradicionales asociados. Estas solicitudes se han presentado en diversos foros, incluyendo la OMC, la OMPI, la CDB, y más recientemente en los acuerdos comerciales regionales y bilaterales.

Algunos avances  se han podido concretar en esta materia. Por ejemplo, las negociaciones en la OMC se impulsaron luego de que en julio de 2008 una propuesta para modificar el Acuerdo sobre los ADPIC e incorporar la divulgación del origen, y potencialmente evidencia de la existencia de consentimiento fundamentado previo (CFP) y el acceso y participación en los beneficios (APB) fuera apoyada por más de 110 países.  Sin embargo  el debate no ha avanzado considerablemente en otros foros a pesar de varios años sucesivos de intensas discusiones.

Es en este contexto que ICTSD, BMZ, GTZ y entidades locales emprenden una serie de diálogos a nivel regional para brindar un apoyo más profundo que permita crear sinergias entre la propiedad intelectual y la biodiversidad. Los objetivos de estos diálogos son precisamente:

1.      Proporcionar una plataforma para que los diferentes interesados examinen las preocupaciones regionales, el conocimiento necesario y las áreas prioritarias para la acción en los ámbitos político y técnico respecto a la relación entre los derechos de propiedad intelectual y el uso sostenible de los recursos biológicos.

2.      Identificar a corto y largo plazo las necesidades de asistencia técnica sobre esta materia que prevalecen a nivel regional.

El primer diálogo de esta serie tuvo lugar en Heredia, Costa Rica, del 17 al 19 de noviembre de 2009.

El segundo diálogo se titula “Medidas Relacionadas con la Biodiversidad y el Sistema de Propiedad Intelectual” y tendría lugar en Lima, Peru, del 10 al 12 de marzo 2010. Reunirá a actores claves en la creación e implementación de las políticas, representantes del sector privado, instituciones de investigación, representantes de la sociedad civil y de los grupos indígenas de Suramérica; con el apoyo de expertos regionales y del sector académico.

El programa de este importante diálogo regional está disponible en: Agenda Tentativa

Reflecting the deterioration in fish stocks, the upward trend in global marine fish catch since 1950 has now ended and may even be in decline. As the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) points out, “the maximum long-term potential of the world marine capture fisheries has been reached.” The current global catch of about 85 million MT also disguises the changing composition of the total, with catches of smaller and less desirable fish reflecting the decline in dominant species.

While larger fish are generally caught for human consumption, stocks of smaller fish such as sardines and menhaden, on which the larger fish feed, are being used for feed or fertilizer. Well over one-third of fish by weight taken from the ocean are such so-called forage fish, most of which are fed to farmed fish and to pigs and poultry. This not only has an impact on other fish, birds and marine mammals that depend on the smaller fish for survival, but also inefficiently uses large quantities of fish that could be directly consumed for human food.

Coming up in the next two weeks

14-18 July, Geneva, Switzerland. 57TH MEETING OF THE CITES STANDING COMMITTEE. This meeting is organised by the Secretariat of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora. Internet http://www.cites.org/eng/news/calendar.shtml

14-19 July, Dar Es Salaam, Tanzania. SECOND AFRICAN REGIONAL MEETING ON THE STRATEGIC APPROACH TO INTERNATIONAL CHEMICALS MANAGEMENT (SAICM) AND ASSOCIATED UNEP WORKSHOPS. This event is hosted by the Government of Tanzania. The meeting is immediately preceded by the UNEP Workshop on Strengthening Chemicals Management Infrastructures 14-15 July 2008. Internet: http://www.chem.unep.ch/saicm/meeting/afreg/Dar%20es%20Salaam/Default.htm

15-17 July, Accra, Ghana. REGIONAL WORKSHOP ON IMPROVING FOREST LAW COMPLIANCE AND GOVERNANCE IN TROPICAL WEST AFRICA. This workshop is organized by the UN Food and Agriculture Organization and the International Tropical Timber Organization. The workshop will showcase possible approaches to improving forest law compliance at the country level. Internet: http://www.itto.or.jp/live/PageDisplayHandler?pageId=223&id=3970

22-25 July, Bangkok, Thailand. TECHNICAL MEETING OF THE ASIA-PACIFIC NETWORK FOR FOOD AND NUTRITION. This meeting is on “nutrition interventions for food security – can they work effectively in isolation?” The meeting is organised by the UN Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO). For more information please contact Biplab K. Nandi.

Other upcoming events

5-8 August, Manado, Indonesia. SECOND ASIA-PACIFIC FISHERY COMMISSION REGIONAL CONSULTATIVE FORUM. This meeting is organised by the UN Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO). Internet: http://www.fao.org

11-13 August, Manado, Indonesia. ASIA-PACIFIC FISHERY COMMISSION. This is the Commission’s 30th session. The meeting is organized by the UN Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO). For more information please contact Simon Funge-Smith

15-17 August, Dhaka, Bangladesh. INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON FINANCING FOR CLIMATE CHANGE - CHALLENGES AND WAY FORWARD. This conference is arranged by Bangladesh-based think tank Unnayan Onneshan and will focus on financial mechanisms for supporting mitigation activities to combat climate change. Internet: http://www.unnayan.org

17-23 August, Stockholm, Sweden. PROGRESS AND PROSPECTS FOR WATER: FOR A CLEAN AND HEALTHY WORLD. This topic is the theme for the 2008 World Water Week, the leading annual global meeting place for capacity-building, partnership- building and follow-up on the implementation of international processes and programmes in water and development. The World Water Week in Stockholm is arranged by SIWI. For the printable Programme Schedule please refer to http://www.worldwaterweek.org/Downloads/Overview.pdf. For more information please contact: tel. +46 (0)8 522 139 60 ; e-mail katarina.andrzejewska@siwi.org

The annual meeting of the G8 (Group of Eight) - comprising Britain, Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Russia, and the US - met from 7-9 July at the resort island of Hokkaido Toyako, Japan. Leaders from seven African states and other major emerging economies, including China and India, also participated in this week’s talks with the G8 leaders, making it, with 22 countries, the largest gathering in the event’s 33 year history.

Japanese Prime Minister Yasuo Fukuda, the host of this year’s talks, set the G8 agenda with a strong emphasis on climate change and energy security, stating that he would like to see the meeting conclude with an agreement on targets to halve greenhouse gases by the year 2050. At their meeting in Germany last year, the G8 leaders indicated their desire to consider cutting carbon emissions by 2050, but the US resisted any firm pledge.

At this year’s meeting, the leaders agreed to a ’shared vision’ on climate change, including committing their economies to cut their carbon emissions in half by the year 2050. This marks the first time the US and Russia have agreed to a specific long-term goal for greenhouse gas emission reductions.

However, environmental groups were quick to criticise the G8 ‘shared vision’ on climate change for its low level of ambition and its imprecise nature. The global 50-percent reduction of carbon emissions is not indexed to a specific base year, and the agreement leaves out any specific mention of targets for medium- or short-term carbon emission reductions, instead urging each nation to formulate its own such goals.

Ambassador Koji Tsuruoka (Japan) - who briefed reporters on the decision - stated that the motivation for the broad and legally non-binding agreement was “to engage the rest of the world” - namely major emerging economies like China and India. President Bush has long vowed not to adopt mandatory objectives unless developing countries like China sign on to similar targets. The desire to include major developing countries was reflected in the G8 climate change communiqué released Tuesday: “achieving this objective will only be possible through common determination of all major economies,” the statement said.

The G8 leaders also stressed that progress towards ambitious reduction goals is closely linked with accelerated technology development and diffusion. To this end, the leaders committed themselves to dedicating US$ 10 billion annually to climate technology and research.

Following the G8-only meeting on climate change, they met in an expanded group of the so-called ‘major emitters’, including Australia, Indonesia, South Korea, India, China, Brazil, Mexico and South Africa. Together, these nations, which account for 80 percent of the world’s carbon dioxide emissions, attempted to forge an international consensus for a way forward on global warming.

In the statement released from the joint meeting, all the economies were in agreement that “deep cuts in global emissions will be necessary to achieve the Convention’s ultimate objective” and that cooperative action is required to promote the success of the Copenhagen 2009 climate change conference. They did not agree on any specific targets.

The major emitters also said they would “direct our trade officials responsible for WTO issues to advance with a sense of urgency their discussions on issues relevant to promoting our cooperation on climate change” in order to fully promote the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change.

The 2009 G8 Summit will be hosted by Italy.

For a full report of the G8 meeting, see Bridges Weekly, 9 July 2008, at http://www.ictsd.org/weekly/08-07-09/story3.htm

ICTSD reporting; “UN Chief to G8: Climate Change, Food Crisis linked,” THE ASSOCIATED PRESS, 4 July 2008; ” “Africa Takes Centre Stage as G8 Summit Kicks Off,” REUTERS, 6 July 2008; “Ban Ki-moon: Paying the Price for Global Growth,” THE GUARDIAN, 3 July 2008; “G-8 leaders struggle to reach deal on Africa,” INTERNATIONAL HERALD TRIBUNE, 7 July 2008; G-8 summit opens with spotlight on aid for Africa,” THE ASSOCIATED PRESS, 7 July 2008; G8 countries reaffirm pledges to Africa,” UPI, 8 July 2008; “Financial measures sought against Zimbabwe,” REUTERS, 8 July 2008; “G8 climate deal falls short, critics say,” REUTERS, 8 July 2008.

The only international forum to deal exclusively with whales, the International Whaling Committee (IWC) held its Annual Commission Meeting for the 60th time, this year in Santiago, Chile. The 81 member nations gathered to discuss issues relating to the global marine mammal stock and its past and future management. The five-day long annual conference ended on Friday, 27 June. Items discussed at this year’s meeting involved obstacles encountered in conservation work, current threats to marine mammals, marine mammals as a living resource, special whaling permits for aboriginal communities and scientific purposes, as well as research and funding.

Polarised commission working towards a change

Increasing consensus within the IWC topped the 2008 agenda. After a global moratorium on whaling was instated in 1986 the IWC has become increasingly polarised, with pro-whaling nations regularly threatening to withdraw (Bridges Trade BioRes, 8 June 2007, http://www.ictsd.org/biores/07-06-08/story2.htm). This year, the Commission saw increased efforts towards a more cooperative organisation, and held an inter-sessional meeting to seek reform (see Bridges Trade BioRes, 20 March 2008, http://www.ictsd.org/biores/08-03-20/inbrief.htm#2). At the Commission, countries decided not to vote on controversial topics, such as the possibility of establishing a third sanctuary. Japan also atypically refrained from calling a vote on reversing the commercial whaling moratorium.

Tensions exist particularly between the three big whaling countries Japan, Norway and Iceland and anti-whalers such as Australia, the US and countries in Latin America. While Norway and Iceland have continued to whale despite the moratorium, Japan officially respects the moratorium while engaging in whaling for the purposes of scientific research, which is allowed under the IWC. The IWC also grants exceptions to the whaling moratorium for aboriginal subsistence whaling.

Many IWC members, in particular those belonging to the anti-whaling Buenos Aires Group formed in 2005, see non-lethal action as a means of up-dating the organisation. Australia made a proposal for the first non-lethal scientific whale research centre at the Commission. Reportedly, the proposal was well received. Members also brought up the financial potential presented by whales as a living natural resource for coastal countries. Australia and many coastal Latin American countries rake in a substantial amount of revenues in this particular field of tourism. Total revenues from whale watching for coastal communities are estimated at US$1 billion a year. Argentina alone makes US$60 million a year, which has encouraged other Latin American countries such as Guatemala, Ecuador and Uruguay to join the IWC in recent years. As the job of the IWC is essentially regulating and protecting whales, it encourages whale watching as a non-lethal resource. At this year’s meeting, the IWC expressed a wish that research be increased in the field of whale watching and its impact on marine mammals.

Market for whale meat in decline

During the course of the previous year Japan took around 900 whales under its scientific whaling programmes. However, consumption of whale meat is waning internationally, and even in Japan, the largest consumer country. Already five years ago, environmental groups pressured UK food giant Tesco PLC into ending the sale of whale meat in Japanese supermarkets. Tesco says it reached its final decision due to lack of consumer demand. Low sales are attributed to growing international awareness of the illegal trade in whale meat and its effect on some endangered populations, combined with increased awareness of the high amount of toxins contained in whale meat. Nevertheless, both Iceland and Norway are hoping for a break into the Japanese whale meat market. In Japan, whaling researchers recently presented some two hundred schools with 10 tonnes of unsold whale meat in order to educate children about the cultural traditions associated with eating whale meat.

The Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES) recommends the IWC not to issue either export or import permits for introduction of whales from the sea for primarily commercial purposes. Despite these joint efforts, Yoshimasa Hayashi, Japanese delegate to the IWC, stated at the beginning of this year that “[Japan] is trying very hard to regain a market for whale eating.”

Addressing threats to whales

The IWC spent much of its annual meeting discussing threats to whale populations, and how to minimise these threats. These threats include oil and gas operations, ship strikes and nets. The Commission organised workshops on threats related to climate change and chemical pollution. Experts were brought in to introduce new data and, for the first time in IWC history, NGOs were permitted to address the session. Five minutes were allocated to Cento de Conservacion Cetacea, the High North Alliance, WWF, the Women´s Forum for Fish, Greenpeace and Concepesca. The IWC also explicitly recognised the importance of support from other international organisations.

Members also discussed conservation monitoring. The IWC has to date established two marine mammal sanctuaries, one in the Southern Ocean (The Southern Ocean Whale Sanctuary) and another in the Indian Ocean (the Indian Ocean Whale Sanctuary). The designation of two additional sanctuaries has been suggested in past meetings, though to no avail. The Commission lacks the three-quarter majority of votes needed to substantiate the plans. The proposal made by Brazil, Argentina and South Africa concerning the creation of a South Atlantic Sanctuary was again deliberately not voted on at this year’s meeting in order to minimise tension within the IWC. Monitoring and research was said to continue in the existing sanctuaries.

Next year’s meeting will be held in Madeira, Portugal, from 28 May to 26 June 2009.

Additional resources

IWC website http://www.iwcoffice.org/index.htm

CITES website http://www.cites.org/

“Whaling Commission’s Future to be Tested in Chile”, REUTERS, 23 June 2008; “International Whaling Commission Makes Little Progress”, ENVIRONMENTAL NEWS SERVICE, 1 July 2008; “IWC turns down Greenland natives’ whaling request”, TAIPEI TIMES, 28 June 2008; “Whales on Agenda”, NEWSWEEK, 25 June 2008; Whales Lose, Japan Wins as Whaling Meets End”, REUTERS, 30 June 2008; “Japan Goes Whaling, IWC Commissioners Sign Protest Declaration”, ENVIRONMENT NEWS SERVICE, 8 November 2005; “Iceland Begins Commercial Whaling”, BBC News, 17 October 2006; “Conservationists Welcome Tesco’s Decision to End Sale of Meat in Japan”, GREENPEACE UK, 9 November 2004; “Japanese School Kids Have Whale of a Lunchtime”, THE DAILY TELEGRAPH, 28 February 2008.

Heads of state, ministers and other high-level officials from 181 countries attended a summit on climate change, energy and food in Rome on 3-5 June. The UN Food and Agricultural Organisation (FAO) ‘High-Level Conference on World Food Security: the Challenges of Climate Change and Bioenergy’ was a culmination of months of expert-level meetings that assessed the complex causes and effects of the recent rise in food prices. A Declaration on World Food Security was issued at the conclusion of the meeting, committing the attendees to “eliminating hunger and securing food for all.” It included provisions on short and long-term measures to address the causes and effects of the recent spike in food prices.

Industry interests represented in Rome

Key biofuels stakeholders started preparing the ground for a battle on the topic in advance of the Food Summit. A number of developed countries, including the US, Canada and several European countries — also top donors to the FAO and World Food Programme — have committed themselves to the use of biofuels, and have active stakeholders within their farming communities and biofuel industries.

Preparing for the summit, industry representatives in the US, Canada and Europe sent a letter to the attendees, downplaying the negative impact of biofuels on food prices. According to the letter, “It would be highly precipitous…for the United Nations or other international bodies to single out biofuels as the major cause for escalating food prices and take actions that might lead to even higher food prices.”

A number of studies have provided a range of estimates of the actual impact of biofuels policies on food prices, with the FAO and the Organisation of Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) attributing between 20-60 percent of the rise in food prices to biofuels. The Washington-based International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI) provided an estimate of 30 percent.

The FAO/OECD report further suggested that leaders rethink biofuel policy, called the economic, environmental and energy benefits of current generation biofuels “at best modest and sometimes even negative.”

Diouf questions use of biofuels

Early on at the summit, FAO Director-General Jacques Diouf honed in on biofuels subsidies, saying that “Nobody understands [why] $11-12bn of subsidies in 2006 and protective tariff policies [should be used to] divert 100m tonnes of cereals from human consumption, mostly to satisfy a thirst for fuel for vehicles.”

During the three-day meeting, biofuels continued to be one of the most contentious issues.

US Agriculture Secretary Ed Schafer played an active role as a proponent of biofuels, defending the US corn-based ethanol industry. “It’s not a question of choosing between food and fuel. The world has no shortage of agricultural land to produce either, but it has been short of agricultural investment for a long time,” he said. In contrast to estimates provided by FAO, the OECD and IFPRI, Schafer stated that the biofuels boom has only had an impact amounting to 2-3 percent of the increase in food prices.

The summit also saw squabbling between different biofuels producers. Brazilian President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva took aim at the US, saying that the country’s subsidies and tariff barriers are designed to keep out Brazilian sugar-cane ethanol. He dismissed charges that biofuel production was responsible for the current food crisis and supported sustainable biofuel production, noting the many benefits of cane-based ethanol. Brazilian ethanol does not depend on subsidies in order to be viable, something most developed-country biofuels do.

However, a number of developing countries, Venezuela and Egypt among them, proposed strong language for the final declaration, opposing the diversion of food crops for the production of biofuels.

Indian Agriculture Minister Sharad Pawar said “if we decided to convert all of the world’s grain into motor fuel we will still need to use lots of oil and we would not be having anything to eat.” He added that “conversions of food grain and oil seeds for producing bio-fuel, prima facie, appears to be fraught with food security concerns as is evident already.”

Development groups such as Oxfam and ActionAid also spoke out against biofuels. Rob Bailey, a biofuels expert at Oxfam, stressed the necessity of focusing on biofuels policy and subsidies as an area of intervention in the food crises. “We can’t control the weather, we can’t control the growth of demand in China, we can’t control the oil price but we can control biofuels policy, because it’s politically created in the first place,” he said. He noted that cane-based ethanol posed less of a threat as compared to corn-based biofuels.

Participants decide to study biofuel impacts

In the end, the summit agreed on a watered-down declaration on biofuels, recognising both “challenges and opportunities posed by biofuels, in view of the world’s food security, energy and sustainable development needs.” In the declaration, the conference called for in-depth study “to ensure that production and use of biofuels is sustainable.” The attendees also said they would “foster a coherent, effective and results-oriented international dialogue on biofuels in the context of food security and sustainable development needs.”

The renewable fuels associations of the US, Canada, with the European Bioethanol Fuel Association welcomed the “thoughtful approach” the declaration took. “We welcome today’s UN FAO proposal to undertake further study of biofuels in agriculture. We are confident it will underscore the valuable contribution biofuels can make to ease the energy and agriculture challenges confronting all nations,” they said in their statement.

Other developments: short and long-term action

In addition to the biofuel debate, the Food Summit addressed a number of crucial issues, including the immediate need for funding to alleviate the food crises. Diouf appealed to the international community to commit “US$30 billion a year to enable 862 million hungry people to enjoy the most fundamental of human rights: the right to food and thus the right to life.” At the summit, participants pledged US$6.8 billion towards a fund to address hunger and poverty.

The declaration of the summit also called for increased resources for UN agencies, cooperation between international and national food security actors, and food assistance that is cognisant of a “continuum from urgent to longer term assistance.”

After addressing the urgent need for relief, the declaration emphasised the need for an appropriate set of policies that support agricultural trade and production. Global market integration, reduced barriers to trade and capacity building through improved agricultural inputs were particular areas of emphasis.

The Doha round of trade negotiations was explicitly mentioned. WTO Members reiterated “their willingness to reach comprehensive and ambitious results conducive to improving food security in developing countries.”

The summit declaration also set out a series of longer-term measures and objectives to reduce hunger, decrease the vulnerability to shocks of the food system, and address the challenges of climate change.

Additional resources

For a full report on the Summit, see Bridges Weekly at http://www.ictsd.org/weekly/08-06-11/story2.htm.

World Declaration on Food Security is available at http://www.fao.org/fileadmin/user_upload/foodclimate/HLCdocs/declaration-E.pdf.

For daily reports and a summary of the World Food Summit by IISD’s Earth Negotiations Bulletin, visit http://www.iisd.ca/ymb/wfs/.

ICTSD reporting; “Food-summit draft rejects biofuels control,” GLOBE AND MAIL, 5 June 2008; “World’s farmers by-passed at UN food crisis summit: IFAP,” AFP, 9 June 2008; “Africa: Food Summit Calls for More Investment in Agriculture,” GHANAIAN CHRONICLE, 10 June 2008; “Biofuel industries pleased by U.N. summit resolution,” REUTERS, 5 June 2008; “Rome food summit calls for in-depth study on bio-fuels,” PRESS TRUST INDIA, 6 June 2008.

The 10 June report, jointly commissioned by environment group WWF and the China Council for International Cooperation on Environment and Development (CCICED), argues for increased conservation and innovative solutions for sustainable development. It is the first comprehensive report on China’s footprint.

China’s footprint in 2003 of 1.6 hectares per person, ranked 69th in the world, is less than the world average ecological footprint of 2.2 hectares per person. China uses 15 percent of the world’s total biological capacity, and presents a large challenge because of its population size and robust economic growth. The report states that were China to have the same ecological footprint per capita as the US, it would demand the available capacity of the entire planet.

The report finds that China’s increased ecological footprint is due partly to trade. While China imports raw material to make up its ecological deficit, it also exports biocapacity embodied in manufactured products to developed countries. A recent review of China’s economy conducted at the WTO called for concerted action to preserve the environment, while recognising that China already is taking steps to reduce energy-intensive exports through export taxes and other trade measures (see Bridges Trade BioRes, 30 May 2008, http://www.ictsd.com/biores/08-05-30/inbrief.htm#3).

According to the new study on China’s ecological footprint, the country should implement a dual strategy to reduce its ecological footprint. On the one hand, China should undertake cheap and easy short-term changes such as the use of energy-intensive light bulbs, while simultaneously focusing on longer-term efforts through investment in resource-efficient infrastructure and compact urban development.

“If China can model a new development path that achieves environmental quality, social harmony, and human well-being, it will lead the way for the world as a whole,” the report argues.

ICTSD reporting; “China is urged to conserve resources,” WSJ, 11 June 2008; “New report shows China’s ecological footprint doubled,” WWF, 10 June 2008; “China not solely responsible for its ecological footprint, says WWF,” CHINA DEVELOPMENT BRIEF, 10 June 2008; “Ecological resources use below average,” CHINA DAILY, 11 June 2008.

China has enjoyed impressive economic growth since 2006, but faces challenges in the form of rising income inequality, a widening gap between savings and investment, as well as other economic imbalances, according to the review (for a full account of the review, see Bridges Weekly, 28 May 2008, http://www.ictsd.org/weekly/08-05-28/story4.htm).

One of the issues highlighted in the China TPR was its use of export taxes, reduced VAT rebates, licensing requirements, and other trade measures to restrain, if not prohibit, exports of a considerable and growing number of products that use large amounts of natural resources and energy. A good example is China’s recent increase in interim duty rates on 142 tariff lines with a view to reducing exports of highly energy- and pollution-intensive products as well as those that consume large amounts of raw materials.

While the large size of China’s industrial sector is partly responsible for the energy intensity of the country’s economy, the report also pointed out that price mechanisms for oil, coal, electricity and natural gas have artificially lowered prices, causing an overconsumption of energy. The second-largest energy user in the world, China is also the second-largest greenhouse gas emitter, thanks in large part to the fact that 70 percent of the country’s energy production comes from coal.

Therefore, the report outlined a number of potential areas for reform. It called for a gradual dismantling of price controls and other impediments to the efficient allocation of land, energy, water, and other natural resources. Such changes would promote stronger environmental protection, especially if supplemented by market-based instruments that require polluters to pay for the damages they cause, according to the report.

The documents related to the China Trade Policy Review http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/tpr_e/tp299_e.htm.

ICTSD reporting.