The ninth Conference of the Parties (COP-9) to the Basel Convention on the Transboundary Movement of Hazardous Wastes and Their Disposal was held from 23-27 June. “Waste Management for Human Health and Livelihood” was the theme of the meeting, and remained the focus throughout. In addition, delegates addressed issues of electronic waste (e-waste), ship dismantling, draft technical guidelines for used tyres and mercury waste, the role of Basel Convention Regional and Coordinating Centres (BCRCs) in the convention’s overall Strategic Plan and greater cooperation with the Stockholm and Rotterdam chemicals conventions.

The Ban Amendment and Article 17(5)

Under the Ban Amendment, developed countries would be prohibited for exporting hazardous waste to developing countries, be it for final disposal, recovery or recycling. First proposed in 1995, the Ban Amendment has been a bone of contention among the parties, which remain divided over its merits and the number of ratifications required for its entry into force.

This discord stems from ambiguous language in Article 17, Paragraph 5 of the Basel Convention.
The relevant part of the paragraph states that amendments “shall enter into force between Parties having accepted them on the ninetieth day after the receipt by the Depositary of their instrument of ratification, approval, formal confirmation or acceptance by at least three-fourths of the Parties who accepted them.” This section has been interpreted in two ways.

According to the “fixed time” approach, championed by the EU and Norway, which would like to see the Ban Amendment enter into force as soon as possible, the number of ratifications required is three-quarters of the original members, or 62 out of the original 82 parties. Currently, there are 63 ratifications; however, since some of these ratifications are not from original members to the convention, some argue that not all ratifications should be calculated into the final count.

The “current time” approach, advocated by Canada, Japan and the US, requires three-quarters of current parties to the convention, or 128 of 170, to ratify the amendment. These non-signatory countries have challenged the amendment several times, fearing that it would considerably curb their recycling industries.

Without a settlement for the legal interpretation of Article 17(5), it is very unlikely that the Ban Amendment will come into force.

In its Bali Declaration, the conference failed to make any reference to the Ban Amendment. However, Rachmat Witoelar, Indonesian Minister for the Environment and president of the convention, did produce a non-paper on a “Way Forward” for the implementation of the Ban Amendment. In it, he urged parties to initiate and expedite the process by formulating “enabling conditions” that would be amenable to the amendment once it would garner enough ratifications.

“The Bali meeting has finally made a step forward [with respect to the Ban Amendment],” Witoelar said. “With the formation of a working group, we will start discussing all the practical issues relating to the Ban Amendment.”

Some were not so optimistic. Dr. O.O. Dada, of the Nigerian delegation, was “shocked” that the COP did not endorse the ban outright, and said that African nations will now look for regional agreements to regulate toxic imports.

E-products: friend or foe?

According to a report by the Global e-Report Initiative, advances in information and communication technologies (ICT) could cut global greenhouse gas emissions by fifteen percent by 2020, especially through energy efficiency schemes. Achim Steiner, Executive Director of the UN Environment Programme (UNEP), was quick to note that this rapid growth also leads to e-waste problems and as such “represents a major challenge to the international community in terms of human health and the environment.”

In the fast-paced world of electronics, where yesterday’s must-have gadget are today’s wayside refuse, waste production is a serious problem. It is estimated that some 50 million tonnes of e-waste – from mobile phones, computers and television sets, among others – are produced annually.

Despite 16 years of the Basel Convention, export in toxic waste – especially electronic waste and old ships – has actually increased. This is not surprising when you look at some statistics: current studies estimate that there are 3 billion mobile phones worldwide, and personal computers are projected to double by 2015 to two billion. With disposable incomes rapidly rising in emerging and developing countries, such growth is not likely to decline in the near future.

“Developing countries suffer enough from the ravages of hunger, poverty, infant mortality and disease,” Kevin Stairs of the Seattle-based Basel Action Network, said. “Sending them our toxic waste amounts to a cruel throwing of salt in the wounds, undertaken simply to increase profits at the expense of developing countries, their people and the global environment.” However, some developing countries welcome imports of used electronic products for recycling, as this provides opportunities for employment and economic development.

The environmental impacts of used and end-of-life products have received much attention lately due to a recent environment ministers meeting in Kobe, Japan in the run-up to the G-8 Summit (see Bridges Trade BioRes, 30 May 2008, http://www.basel.int/meetings/frsetmain.php?meetingId=1&languagId=1; also, see Bridges Trade BioRes, 15 December 2006, http://www.ictsd.org/biores/06-12-15/story1.htm).

Funding and capacity-building

COP-9 also considered funding, capacity-building and ways to enhance its effectiveness. Like many multilateral agreements based on voluntary and member contributions, the Convention faces problems with funding, implementation and insufficient capacity in developing countries that hinders combating toxic waste.

Jim Puckett of Basel Action Network shared many words of concern with the parties. “The convention risks becoming a paper tiger if its Parties cannot implement and enforce its own rules,” he said in specific reference to a site visit to Guiyu, China, where illegally imported e-waste had increased dramatically in the past few years.

Executive Secretary Katharina Kummar Peiry suggested a ten percent increase in budgeting for the Convention to help address these problems. This was met with apprehension. The EU tabled a proposal to institute a one-time, three-year budget that would be not only cost-effective, but would also bring its budget in line with the Stockholm Convention and UNEP.

COP-9 further decided that the Convention’s effectiveness would be evaluated at COP-11, especially in light of Article 15(7) which states that the “Conference of the Parties shall, [every six years]… undertake an evaluation of its effectiveness and, if deemed necessary, to consider the adoption of a complete or partial ban of transboundary movements of hazardous wastes and other wastes in light of the latest scientific, environmental, technical and economic information.”

The co-chairs of the Ad Hoc Joint Working Group (AHJWG) on Enhancing Cooperation and Coordination between the Basel, Rotterdam and Stockholm Conventions presented a set of recommendations that they thought would improve implementation at the national, regional and international levels; raise the political profile of each convention; contribute to international environmental governance discourse; and hopefully be more cost-effective by working more synergistically. Several parties expressed satisfaction for the AHJWG’s work, and many considered it to be the key success of the meeting.

The next Conference of the Parties of the Basel Convention is scheduled for 2011, at a location to be determined.

Background

The Basel Convention was adopted in March 1989 and entered into force on 5 May 1992, after the mishaps of several “toxic ships” in the late 1980s. It requires countries to obtain consent from the country of exportation before moving hazardous waste and allows countries to deny entry of waste products into their country. The Convention takes a three-step strategy to combating hazardous waste: minimising waste generation at the source, treating waste as close to its point of generation as possible and reducing the international movement of hazardous waste.

All three pillars, either implicitly or explicitly, have important trade-related aspects and implications.

Additional resources

The COP-9 documents are available at http://www.basel.int/meetings/frsetmain.php?meetingId=1&languagId=1.

For a full report of the meeting see IISD’s Earth Negotiations Bulletin at http://www.iisd.ca/basel/cop9/.

ICTSD reporting; “IT waste a ‘major challenge’ to human health: UNEP,” AFP, 26 June; “Toxic waste export harder to control, despite Basel Convention,” DAILY NEWS, 1 July; “UN conference won’t ban toxic waste exports,” AP, 27 June 2008; “United Nations waste treaty postpones long awaited toxic waste dumping ban,” BAN, 27 June 2008; “Your laptop’s dirty little secret,” TIME, 29 June 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.

WEBSITE: NONTARGET EFFECTS OF GENETIC MANIPULATION. The Nature Institute has unveiled a new website designed to set the public debate about genetic engineering upon a more accessible scientific foundation. Distilling a voluminous technical literature, the website gathers together — often in the researchers’ own words — information about both the intended and unintended consequences of transgenic experiments. The emerging picture tells a dramatic story — one that has scarcely begun to inform the public conversation to date. The website is part of The Nature Institute’s ongoing project on “The Nontarget Effects of Genetic Manipulation.” See the website at available at http://nontarget.org.

THE RIGHT TO FOOD AND THE IMPACT OF LIQUID BIOFUELS (AGROFUELS). By Asbjørn Eide, 2008. This study examines the impact of biofuel production on the enjoyment of the human right to adequate food and the fundamental right of everyone to be free from hunger. It follows from internationally recognised human rights that States have a core obligation to ensure freedom from hunger for all, and that any decisions which may negatively affect the enjoyment of the right to food should be reviewed. This has also been reiterated by the UN Human Rights Council in its resolution adopted on 22 May 2008 as the result of its special session on the food crisis from a human rights perspective. This paper therefore explores whether and to what extent biofuel production has undermined or is likely in the future to undermine or weaken the access to food for vulnerable people, and whether there are any overriding ethical concerns that can justify biofuel production even if it harms access to necessary and sufficient food to avoid hunger. Download at http://www.fao.org/righttofood/publi08/Right_to_Food_and_Biofuels.pdf.

“Traditional knowledge and intellectual property rights: A note on issues, some solutions and some suggestions.” By Krishna Ravi Srinivas. ASIAN JOURNAL OF WTO AND INTERNATIONAL HEALTH LAW AND POLICY, Vol. 3, No. 1, pp. 81-120, March 2008. This article discusses the issues in intellectual property protection for traditional knowledge. After discussing the definitional issues in traditional knowledge, it examines the current global debates on this issue. It identifies some solutions and provides an analysis of the solutions. It then highlights the North-South divide in this issue and the predicament of the south in finding an acceptable solution. It ends with some suggestions for arriving at a solution and argues that there is a need to go beyond intellectual property rights to resolve this issue. This paper is available at http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1140623.

TRENDS IN SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT 2008-2009, 2008. By DESA, April 2008. The report finds that efforts to reduce poverty and improve food security in developing countries are hampered by declining support for strong agricultural growth, long considered a hallmark of successful poverty reduction strategies. Strong agricultural growth is four times more effective than growth in other sectors in benefiting the poorest half of the population. Download at http://www.un.org/esa/sustdev/publications/trends2008/.

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.

The four days of deliberation on the bill were characterised more by partisan bickering than real debate. On Wednesday, 4 June, Republicans forced clerks to read the entire bill, which took over ten hours, due to a dispute over judicial nominees.

Opponents, such as Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY), said that the economic burden that the bill would impose — including job losses, tax hikes estimated at US$6 trillion, and mounting electricity, gas and diesel prices — was simply too high, especially in an economy already under the weather. An editorial in the Washington Post called the bill “the most extensive government reorganisation of the American economy since the 1930s”, in reference to Roosevelt’s New Deal.

“As I suspected, reality hit the US Senate when the economic facts of this bill were exposed,” Senator James Inhofe (R-OK), a member of the Environment and Public Works Committee, said. “When faced with the inconvenient truth of the bill’s impact on skyrocketing gas prices, very few Senators were willing to even debate this bill.”

Despite such wrangling and opposition, proponents of climate change legislation remain optimistic for the future of climate change legislation.

“This is moving in the direction that history needs it to move,” Senator Joe Lieberman (I-CT), co-sponsor of the bill along with Senator John Warner (R-VA), said.

Environmentalists are looking beyond the Bush administration — which threatened to veto the bill should it pass in the Congress — towards 2009, when a new administration will occupy the White House.

“This week’s debate was just the first round in a three-round fight,” said the Environmental Defense Fund, National Wildlife Federation and Natural Resources Defense Council in a joint statement. “The Senate debate has elevated the importance of this issue for the election and the next round will be in November. The final round will be next year, when we will have the support and momentum we need to pass legislation that will more effectively build a clean energy economy and prevent the worst consequences of global warming.”

While the bill fell short of the 60 votes required, 48-36, it did gain majority support within the Senate. Six senators - including presumptive presidential candidates Senator Barack Obama (D-IL) and Senator John McCain (R-AZ) - were unable to attend the meeting, but dispatched letters saying that they would have voted in favour of the bill had they been there, bringing its supporters to a total of 54.

Since either candidate would support a similar bill, work on a “road map” for the next president may begin as early as next week, according to Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA).

“We will have a Senate next year that I believe will be much more hospitable to this bill and they’ll like this bill,” Boxer said. “And we will have a president, either one, who will be hospitable to this subject and we believe will send down a bill to us and work with us.”

The 491-page bill proposed establishing an economy-wide cap-and-trade scheme for greenhouse gas emissions and would have cut total US emissions to 66 percent of 2005 levels by 2050. If passed, the bill would have capped greenhouse has emissions from 87 percent of pollution sources, including power plants and oil refineries. The bill contained controversial provisions on border measures to protect energy-intensive US industries against foreign competition. The legislation targeted emerging economies, such as China or India, in case these did not take ‘comparable measures’ to tackle climate change, requiring them to purchase ‘carbon offsets’ at the border.

As new climate legislation emerges in the US, the trade measures are likely to remain a part of it.

To read the bill in its entirety, see http://lieberman.senate.gov/documents/lwcsa.pdf.

“U.S. Senate abandons global warming bill,” ENS, 6 June 2008; “US carbon-capping climate bill dies in Senate,” PLANET ARK, 9 June 2008; “US climate bill dies; hope for 2009,” REUTERS, 6 June 2008; “Climate reality bites,” WALL STREET JOURNAL, 27 May 2008; “Climate Security Act dies, failing to muster enough votes to move forward,” GRIST, 6 June 2008; “Taking a dive: Why greens are glad the climate bill tanked,” NEW REPUBLIC, 10 June 2008.

SMALL BOATS, BIG PROBLEMS. World Wildlife Fund, 5 May 2008. This paper argues the WWF view that small boats can cause as much damage in fisheries around the world as the big trawlers. While most governments say they want to halt subsidies that contribute to overfishing and over capacity, many demand the right to continue subsidising ’small’ vessels. WWF argues that relaxing WTO rules for ’small boats’ has no basis in sound policy and runs the risk of introducing a dangerous loophole in WTO fisheries subsidies rules. The paper is available at http://assets.panda.org/downloads/wwf__small_boats_big_problems_1.pdf.

STRATEGIC ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR POLICIES: AN INSTRUMENT FOR GOOD GOVERNANCE. Edited by Kulsum Ahmed and Ernesto Sanchez-Triana. The World Bank, May 2008. Environmentally and socially sustainable policies are essential for good governance. Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) is the key tool for integrating environmental considerations into policies, programmes and plans. This book focuses on SEA applied to policies. Through lessons learned from previous use of SEA on policies, it draws lessons on the strengths and weaknesses of current SEA methodology. It then analyses how policies are formulated and implemented and proposes a new conceptual framework for conducting SEA of policies that potentially could be more useful in influencing decision makers to integrate environmental sustainability considerations into policy formulation and implementation. For more information, please refer to http://publications.worldbank.org/ecommerce/catalog/product?item_id=5990301.

DEVELOPMENT AND GLOBALIZATION: FACTS AND FIGURES 2008. UNCTAD, April 2008. This second issue of UN Conference on Trade and Development’s (UNCTAD) Development and Globalization: Facts and Figures is more than an update of the 2004 edition. With economic globalisation challenging much of our traditional wisdom, the 2008 edition is meant to enhance the analytical emphasis and to offer some explanations for new and emerging economic trends. The report provides a synopsis of UNCTAD’s independent research in the areas of trade and development, and related issues in the fields of finance, technology, investment and sustainable development. The report can be accessed at http://www.unwater.org/downloads/UNW_Status_Report_IWRM.pdf.

INTERLINKAGES AND THE EFFECTIVENESS OF MULTILATERAL ENVIRONMENTAL AGREEMENTS. United Nations University, April 2008. This book seeks to fill the existing gaps in knowledge and policy-making with regard to the need for greater coordination and synergies among environmental institutions, policies and legal instruments, particularly focusing on international law. It also provides a framework for measuring the effectiveness of multilateral environmental agreements (MEAs) and shows how the effectiveness of MEAs can be improved by interlinkages. The report is available online at http://www.unu.edu/unupress/sample-chapters/1149-InterlinkagesAndEffectivenessOfMultilateralEnvironmentalAgreements.pdf.

RISING FOOD PRICES, POVERTY, AND THE DOHA ROUND. By Sandra Polaski. Carnegie Endowment Policy Outlook, May 2008. Sandra Polaski examines the role of a Doha agreement in light of rising food prices and their impact on global poverty. Polaski points out that all sophisticated models of the Doha Round conclude that it would raise food prices modestly, but she argues that a carefully crafted agreement could nonetheless play a positive role in improving global food security and reducing future hunger and poverty. Although many poor households will require urgent assistance because of rising food prices, more are likely to gain than lose. However, proper diagnosis of the problem will be required to avoid counterproductive measures that could have disastrous results. For further information and access to the policy paper, please refer to http://www.carnegieendowment.org/publications/index.cfm?fa=view&id=20144&prog=zgp&proj=zted.

EUROPEAN FINANCING OF AGROFUEL PRODUCTION IN LATIN AMERICA. By Jan Willem van Gelder and Hassel Kroes (Friends of the Earth, May 2008). This report aims to provide a first overview of the involvement of private European financial institutions in the financing of companies producing and trading palm oil, soybeans and sugar in Latin America, as well as companies processing these feedstocks into agrofuels in Latin America. Thirteen companies involved in this sector were found to have linkages with 44 European financial institutions from ten European countries (Austria, Belgium, France, Germany, Italy, Netherlands, Portugal, Spain, Switzerland and the United Kingdom). Most companies only have links with a limited number of European financial institutions, but Bunge has links with 31 European financial institutions, Agrenco with 19 and Tereos with 13. Download at http://www.foeeurope.org/agrofuels/financers_report_May08.pdf.

“Assessing the Implementation Effects of the Biosafety Protocol’s Proposed Stringent Information Requirements for Genetically Modified Commodities in Countries of the Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation” in the REVIEW OF AGRICULTURAL ECONOMICS. By Guillaume P. Gruère and Mark W. Rosegrant, 2008. This article analyses the potential effects of a generalised implementation of the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety’s proposed stringent information requirements on countries, members of the Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC). This rule would request all traded shipments containing living modified organisms intended for food, feed, or processing to carry a label with the list of precise genetically modified (GM) events in the shipments. We find that the benefits of such requirements are largely debatable and that this regulation would add significant implementation costs for importers of GM crops, for Protocol members adopting new GM crops, and for countries ratifying the Protocol. Download at http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1467-9353.2008.00401.x.

INTRODUCING A GENETICALLY MODIFIED BANANA IN UGANDA: SOCIAL BENEFITS, COSTS, AND CONSUMER PERCEPTIONS. By Enoch Kikulwe, Justus Wesseler, and José Falck-Zepeda (IFPRI, May 2008). The purpose of this paper is to examine potential social welfare impacts of adopting a GM banana in Uganda. The study has three objectives. First, suggest and apply an approach to calculate reversible and irreversible benefits and costs of introducing a GM banana. The study applies a real option approach to estimate, ex ante, the maximum incremental social tolerable irreversible costs (MISTICs) that would justify immediate introduction of the technology. Second, suggest an approach for assessing producer/consumer preferences and willingness to pay (WTP) for introducing a GM banana. Finally, the paper discusses main implications for biosafety decision making for GM crops in Uganda. Available online at http://www.ifpri.org/pubs/dp/ifpridp00767.asp.

AGAINST THE GRAIN. By Seren Boyd(Progressio, 2008). The practice of seed-saving and seed sharing is at the very heart of small-scale farming and central to the livelihoods of 1.4 billion people in the developing world. But its future - and the food security of those who rely on it - is now under serious threat. Terminator technology - which uses genetic engineering to make plants produce sterile seeds - could destroy age-old farming practices. These so-called ’suicide seeds’ could push millions deeper into poverty and dependence on multinational seed companies competing for a share of a global seed market worth about US$19.6 billion. Terminator technology is not simply ‘another form of GM’ as some have tried to argue. If commercialised, it would put even greater pressure on natural habitats and local environments which are already threatened by the risks of climate change. Progressio is sounding a wake-up call to policy-makers in the UK and the EU attending COP9 in Bonn. It is urging them to recognise the very real threats to the CBD moratorium and to speak out at COP9 to uphold the ban. And it is calling on them to speak out against the EC’s funding for Transcontainer - before it is too late. Download at http://www.progressio.org.uk/shared_asp_files/GFSR.asp?NodeID=96159.

Climate change policies aimed at controlling emissions of greenhouse gases (GHG) are leading to realignment in the production and consumption of goods and services around the world. As Annex I Parties to the Kyoto Protocol are taking up various measures ranging from energy-efficiency standards, carbon cap-and-trade programmes and carbon taxes, concerns have been raised that industries in these countries will find themselves at a disadvantageous position vis-à-vis countries where such mandatory measures may not be implemented. There is growing fear that this may lead to “carbon leakage” and industrial relocation from OECD to non-OECD countries, especially for energy-intensive industries, such as steel, cement and chemicals targeted by climate policies. As a major emerging economy not bound by mandatory GHG reduction obligations, China is at the centre of some of these concerns.

In the context of international trade, some countries are worried that by implementing stringent climate change policies they will have to compete with exports from countries where costs of production may be lowered as a result of the absence of mandatory emissions reduction obligations on producers. These concerns have prompted calls within industry as well as by politicians for the introduction of measures, including trade measures, to offset competitive imbalances and level the playing field vis-à-vis “climate free riders”. Rhetoric over the use of border tax adjustments and measures with similar effects has particularly been prominent in this regard.

China is poised to weigh heavily on the process and outcome of these debates through its domestic policies and modalities of its participation in the crafting of multilateral regulatory frameworks. In that context, a number of opportunities and challenges for sustainable development arise for China and the international community at large.

This collection of papers is meant to bring together views and perspectives from a wide range of experts and analysts both within China and internationally to contribute to the debate on issues in the trade– climate change relationship that may impact on global competitiveness, with a particular focus on the role of China. Chapter 1 provides an overview of issues in the WTO-Kyoto Protocol relationship that pertain to competitiveness. It situates the debate on the impact of climate change measures undertaken by Annex I countries on competitiveness, discusses approaches being considered in response to such competitiveness concerns and highlights some of the key questions of particular concern to China.

The second chapter presents current policies related to climate change in China and examines key elements of the recently adopted National Climate Change Programme, including challenges that China is likely to face in its implementation. The paper also discusses most likely scenarios regarding China’s role in a future climate change regime (post-Kyoto) and the implications for global efforts to tackle climate change.

Chapter 3 provides an analysis of the effects of climate change measures adopted in OECD countries on international trade and competitiveness. The chapter presents initial empirical evidence obtained on the impact of carbon taxes and energy efficiency standards on international trade flows and competitiveness. It addresses the question of whether or not “carbon leakage” is occurring and whether China is benefiting from industrial relocation from OECD countries in energy-intensive industries. The chapter finally examines to what extent climate change policies are driving positive developments in global competitiveness.

Concerns over competitiveness were invoked by the US to justify its non-ratification of the Kyoto Protocol. Such concerns have recently been common in many Kyoto Protocol Annex I countries. This has led to a debate over the need for measures such as border tax adjustments to enable industry in countries subjected to mandatory emissions reduction obligations to insure that conditions are equal vis-à-vis countries that have not accepted similar obligations. In that context, Chapter 4 discusses initiatives being considered in the EU and the US, which may have important implications for China.

As its exports to OECD countries expand, China is bound to comply with increasingly stringent energy efficiency and other climate related standards. Moreover, Chinese exports of certain products such as energy efficient light bulbs have been subjected to anti-dumping measures in the EU. Chapter 5 examines the impact of these measures on China’s exports of electric and electronic goods and discusses how industry within China is responding to trade and climate-related policy measures. Finally, the chapter discusses how these measures may be acting as drivers for improvement in resource and energy efficiency and competitiveness in China.

Technological development is a central aspect of climate change mitigation. Access to advanced technologies, including transfer of technology, will enable developing countries to enhance their capacity to reduce their emissions of greenhouse gases and “leap-frog” in their process of development. Chapter 6 examines the question of whether or not there will be barriers related to intellectual property for developing countries to access clean energy technologies. It does so by analysing the industry structure and intellectual property implications in three clean energy sectors –
solar photovoltaic, biofuels and wind energy technologies.

This paper is part of ICTSD’s Trade and Sustainable Energy series, published under its programme on Trade, Climate Change and Sustainable Energy. The programme aims to generate policy-oriented and solutions-focused knowledge on key issues at the interface between the multilateral trading system and various regimes and initiatives promoting the transition to a sustainable energy future.