martes, 29 de julio de 2008

World trade talks end in collapse / Negociaciones de comercio mundial terminan en colapso

Marathon talks in Geneva aimed at liberalising global trade have collapsed, the head of the World Trade Organisation has said.
Pascal Lamy confirmed the failure, which officials have blamed on China, India and the US failing to agree on import rules.
EU Trade Commissioner Peter Mandelson said the result was "heartbreaking".
The talks were launched in 2001 in Doha and were seen as providing a cornerstone for future global trade.
The main stumbling block was farm import rules, which allow countries to protect poor farmers by imposing a tariff on certain goods in the event of a drop in prices or a surge in imports.
India, China and the US could not agree on the tariff threshold for such an event.
Washington said that the "safeguard clause" protecting developing nations from unrestricted imports had been set too low.
Possible solution?
The negotiations floundered as trade officials gathered for a ninth day.
"There's no use beating around the bush, this meeting has collapsed," Mr Lamy said.
"Members have simply not been able to bridge their differences."
He added that time was needed to determine "if and how" WTO members could end the stalemate.

The Doha development round of trade talks initially started in 2001 with the aim of remedying inequality so that the developing world could benefit more from freer trade.
However, the talks have repeatedly collapsed as developed countries failed to agree with developing nations on terms of access to each others' markets.
The US and the European Union want greater access to provide services to fast-growing emerging countries, including China and India.
Meanwhile, developing countries want greater access for their agricultural products in Europe and the US.
Recent complications
Analysts have said that the collapse of the Doha talks could symbolise an end to multilateral trade agreements.

Instead, nations may pursue dual agreements with partner nations, preferring to focus on their own requirements rather than a more common negotiating goal.
The talks in Geneva were complicated by recent increases in the price of food and fuel.
Higher prices have prompted protests in both developed and developing nations, making it harder for negotiators to reach a compromise on opening up their markets to greater competition, analysts said.
Mr Mandelson, the EU trade commissioner, blamed the collapse on a "collective failure" but warned that the "consequences would not be equal", predicting that it would be countries that most needed help that would be hit hardest.
"They [the consequences] will fall disproportionately on those who are most vulnerable in the global economy, those who needed the chances, the opportunities most from a successful trade round." he said.
'Protecting livelihoods'
Trade officials had struck an optimistic tone on Friday, but this evaporated over the weekend amid acrimonious exchanges with the US accusing India and China of blocking progress.
The US said they were being overly protective towards their own farmers and are failing to do enough to open their markets, with US trade representative Susan Schwab calling the stance "blatant protectionism".
"In the face of the global food price crisis, it is ironic that the debate came down to how much and how fast could nations raise their barriers to imports of food," she said.
But India's trade minister, Kamal Nath, who had been criticised by a number of countries for his intransigence said the US demands were unreasonable.
"It's unfortunate in a development round we couldn't run the last mile because of an issue concerning livelihood security," Mr Nath said.

martes, 15 de julio de 2008

Forests to fall for food and fuel / Los bosques caerán por alimentos y combustible.

By Richard Black
Environment correspondent, BBC News website

Demand for land to grow food, fuel crops and wood is set to outstrip supply, leading to the probable destruction of forests, a report warns.

The Rights and Resources Initiative (RRI) says only half of the extra land needed by 2030 is available without eating into tropical forested areas.

A companion report documents poor progress in reforming land ownership and governance in developing countries.

Both reports were launched on Monday in UK government offices in London.

Supporters of RRI include the UK's Department of International Development (DfID) and its equivalents in Sweden and Switzerland.

"Arguably, we are on the verge of a last great global land grab," said RRI's Andy White, co-author of the major report, Seeing People through the Trees.

"It will mean more deforestation, more conflict, more carbon emissions, more climate change and less prosperity for everyone."

Rising demand for food, biofuels and wood for paper, building and industry means that 515 million hectares of extra land will be needed for growing crops and trees by 2030, RRI calculates.

But only 200 million hectares will be available without dipping into tropical forests.

Forest focus

The report foresees demand increasing further into the century.

It cites studies suggesting that "...if the current plateau in productivity continues, the amount of additional agricultural land required just to meet the world's projected food demand in 2050 would be about three billion hectares, nearly all of which would be required in developing countries."

According to UN figures, the world currently has about 1.4 billion hectares of arable land and about 3.4 billion hectares of pasture.

Some academics place their hopes in agricultural technologies including genetic engineering to boost crop yields.

But since the spectacular successes of the Green Revolution, advances have been slow. In some areas, yields are falling - a trend which is likely to be exacerbated by climate change.

However, eating into tropical forests to create extra agricultural land would, in turn, exacerbate climate change, with deforestation currently accounting for about 20% of greenhouse gas emissions.

Reform call

One of RRI's main conclusions is that reform of land ownership is crucial, if large-scale pillage of tropical forests is to be avoided.

The conclusion have been supported by DfID, whose minister Gareth Thomas was one of the speakers at the launch event.

"These new studies should strengthen global resolve to protect the property rights of indigenous and local communities who play a vital role in protecting one the most outstanding natural wonders of the world," he said.

DfID runs programmes in West Africa aimed at helping forest dwellers acquire the legal right to manage their land.

"It is clear that the dual crises of fuel and food are attracting significant new investments and great land speculation," said Andy White.

"Only by protecting the rights of the people who live in and around the world's most vulnerable forests can we prevent the devastation these forces will wreak on the poor."

But the second RRI report - From Exclusion to Ownership? - says progress in reforming ownership has been slow, with only a few countries such as Brazil, Cameroon and Tanzania handing over significant tracts to local communities.

Moves to curb climate change by preserving forests in developing countries could help, RRI concludes. But it also raises the question of who owns rights to the trees - the rich Western countries that want to fund carbon sequestration, or the people who live in the forest areas?

Sorting out ownership could not only help on the environmental front, but also remove reasons for conflict. RRI calculates that about two-thirds of the world's current violent conflicts are driven by land tenure issues.

Richard.Black-INTERNET@bbc.co.uk

martes, 8 de julio de 2008

G8 fails to set climate world alight

ANALYSIS
By Richard Black
Environment correspondent, BBC News website

At first sight, the G8 agreement on climate change promises much.
Leaders are "committed to avoiding the most serious consequences of climate change", and determined to stabilise greenhouse gases in the atmosphere at levels that would avoid "dangerous climate change".
In fact, this is exactly what leaders of nearly 200 countries signed up to in the original UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), agreed at the 1992 Earth Summit. So if re-stating a 16-year-old commitment is progress, then this is clearly a success.
The question ever since Rio has been what to do about it. But the reality of negotiations within groups such as the G8 is that every party needs to emerge with bits of language that they can point to and say "I won".
So here is the key sentence in all its diplomatic finery: "We seek to share with all parties to the UNFCCC the vision of, and together with them to consider and adopt in the UNFCCC negotiations, the goal of achieving at least 50% reduction of global emissions by 2050, recognising that this global challenge can only be met by a global response, in particular, by the contributions from all major economies, consistent with the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities."

So the EU emerges with an apparent commitment to cut emissions by at least 50%.
The US and Canadian administrations can say that it is only a commitment if the major developing countries play ball, and that the 50% figure concerns global emissions, not necessarily their own.
And the major developing countries, involved on the sidelines of the G8 summit, can point to inclusion of the UNFCCC phrase "common but differentiated responsibilities" as continued acknowledgement that far less would be required of them than of developed economies.
Off base
The host nation Japan appears to have won two key concessions.
One is that different industrial sectors could be set different targets with the aim of preserving competitiveness.
The second, which is more important, concerns the baseline year against which carbon savings would be measured.
With very few exceptions, the UN process has always used 1990 as the baseline.
But Japan argues this is unfair. The significant gains in energy efficiency it made before 1990 are effectively penalised, it says, while the gains made in Europe after 1990 through the clean-up of Soviet-era industry and the switch to natural gas are rewarded.

The G8 document does not specify a baseline year, but asked by reporters, Japanese Prime Minister Yasuo Fukuda said it was "current levels".
This would be significant in at least three ways.
From a practical standpoint, emissions have risen by more than a quarter since 1990; so a 50% cut from now is worth far less than a 50% cut from 1990 levels.
On the diplomatic front, it would raise a big question for the EU, which has taken 1990 as the baseline for its own target of cutting emissions by 20% by 2020. The UK's domestic targets also use 1990.
And from a philosophical point of view, it would again amount to turning the clock back 16 years, and saying "we're going to ignore what we said then and start again from here".
The EU will continue to insist that 1990 stays as the baseline in UN talks; and as the G8 document does not specify any date, any party can select whatever it feels is more politically acceptable when reporting back to its electorate.
But just by raising the issue, Mr Fukuda has thrown up yet another thing for parties to argue about.
Leadership question
So it is perhaps not surprising that campaign groups have lined up to criticise the deal.
WWF said it confirmed the recent trend of industrialised countries showing less, rather than more, of the leadership required.
"The G8 are responsible for 62% of the carbon dioxide accumulated in the Earth's atmosphere, which makes them the main culprit of climate change and the biggest part of the problem", said the director of the group's global climate initiative, Kim Carstensen.
"WWF finds it pathetic that they still duck their historic responsibility, and refuse to turn from the main driver of the problem into the main driver of the solution."
Tearfund, which campaigns on issues of developing world poverty rather than the environment per se, added that using a 1990 baseline was crucial.
"Concrete commitments on climate change are the acid test of success at this summit," said international director Peter Grant.
"The G8 are crawling forward on emissions cuts at a time when giant leaps and bounds are needed."

The other main gripe of these organisations is that 2050 is too distant. They have been urging parties to commit to shorter timescales for achieving cuts, as the EU has done with its own 2020 target, arguing that this removes the option of delaying action until it is too late.
Instead, the statement merely acknowledges that "a long-term global goal will require mid-term goals and national plans to achieve them" - without specifying what these goals should look like.
Elsewhere, there is acknowledgement that the poorest countries are going to need help to adapt to climate impacts, and that clean energy technologies need to be developed and rolled out rapidly.
There is support for the rapid development of "clean coal" demonstration plants, in particular, and recognition that some countries will seek to lower carbon emissions through investing in nuclear.
Place in the world
It is important to recognise what the G8 could not achieve.
The UNFCCC is the sovereign body for making global agreements, and the two-year road leading from last December's UN climate summit in Bali to next year's in Copenhagen is still the most important route to a low-carbon future.
Nothing that the G8 or G8+5 or G20 or any other expansion of the core group could agree would change that.
What this week's gathering could have done was to point the way and ease the path, by agreeing a common front to take into the UN process.
On Wednesday, G8 countries meet the large group of "big emitters" or "major economies", the latest stage in a process formulated by the Bush administration.
The group includes major developing countries such as China, India and Mexico. And they have already set out their stall, responding to the G8 declaration with a statement calling on rich countries to go further and faster, committing to cuts of 25-40% by 2020 and 80-90% by 2050.
So far, then, this G8 summit has confused the issue rather than clarifying it.
Governments are as divided as ever on what they are prepared to pledge and what they want to achieve; and re-opening the baseline year question is potentially hugely destructive.
Richard.Black-INTERNET@bbc.co.uk

EU includes aviation in CO2 curbs

The European Parliament has backed a law to include aviation in Europe's CO2 Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) for cutting greenhouse gases.

MEPs voted 640 to 30 for aviation to be included in the scheme from 2012. It includes both EU and non-EU airlines.

Under the UN's Kyoto Protocol, the EU is required to cut its CO2 emissions by 8% from 1990 levels by 2012.

Airlines will have to cut emissions by 3% in the first year, compared to 2005, and by 5% from 2013 onwards.

The measures will now be ratified by the 27 EU member states, which agreed the deal in June.

Industries included in the ETS have to buy and sell permits that allow them to emit carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.

Airlines will have to pay for permits covering 15% of their pollution quotas, the remainder being issued free.

Aviation currently only accounts for about 3% of the EU's total greenhouse gas emissions, but the sector has seen an 87% increase in CO2 since 1990.

The new legislation says the revenues generated from the auctioning of emissions permits should be used to fund: measures to combat climate change, research on clean aircraft, anti-deforestation measures in developing countries and low-emission transport. Within that framework, the member states will decide how to allocate the revenues.

US opposition

US officials and US-based airlines have criticised the extension of the ETS to aviation, arguing that the EU has no right to force airlines using its airspace to abide by the ETS rules. They say the EU must wait for a global agreement to be reached.

Peter Liese, a German MEP who helped negotiate the aviation package, said that "of course, a global agreement is our final goal, but the inclusion of third country flights starting and landing in Europe is a major step for the global fight against climate change".

"Other industries like steel would very much like to be in such a situation," he added.

The ETS began operating in 2005. It applies to major energy and industrial concerns which collectively account for about 40% of the EU's total greenhouse gas emissions.

The aviation deal backed by the MEPs excludes: light planes with a take-off weight under 5.7 tons, UN-approved humanitarian flights, firefighting or other emergency flights, flights by police, customs or military forces, research flights and flights by small, low-emission airlines.

The deal was criticised by the German carrier Lufthansa on Tuesday. A spokesman quoted by Reuters news agency said the ETS was "ecologically counter-productive and economically harmful".

The aviation scheme will include official flights by EU heads of state and ministers.

The European Commission reckons that the scheme could increase return air ticket prices by 4.6 to 39.6 euros (£3.6 to £31) by 2020, depending on the journey length.