—-

本研究旨在探求模式草案的国内和国际影响,强调如下问题:前两部分概述中国农业现状,农业政策和中国在多哈回合的谈判地位。第三部分总结了中国国内支持政策,并详细讨论了在WTO 模式草案下中国向WTO通报的国内支持情况。第四部分从包括和排除例外规则两种情况分析模式草案对中国市场准入产生的影响,最后,综述模式草案对中国产生的影响及中国农业政策未来的发展方向。

Background

In the course of economic globalization, regional economic integration, with Free Trade Area as its main form, has been growing dramatically. The major Powers and regional Groups accelerate the development of FTAs. By the end of August 2008, there have been 213 FTA-focused Regional Trade Arrangements (RTAs) proposed to the WTO and being effective, covering more than half of global trade in goods.

Free Trade Area and Its Trend of Global Development

Free trade area is a designated group of countries that have agreed to eliminate tariffs, quotas and preferences on most (if not all) goods between them. It aims to reduce barriers and realize liberation of trade and investment. As a WTO Plus, FTA entitles its members more preferential treatment than that does the other WTO members. It is such a complementary to the WTO free trade regime that provides the FTA member economies with much more economic space to realize mutual benefits.

The dynamic growth of Free Trade Area has cast a profound impact on the world economic situation. As the experts from the WTO estimate, more than half of the world trade deal internally in various regional Groups with most favored nation treatment. Many countries tend to take advantage of FTAs, especially when the Doha Round talks meet with difficulties.

Developments of China’s Free Trade Areas

China signed its ever first FTA in 2003. Since then, it has established 12 free trade areas with 29 countries from Asia, Oceania, Latin America, Europe and Africa. China’s major FTAs include:

In order to further enhance the level of economic and trade exchanges and cooperation between the Mainland China and Hong Kong/Macao, CEPA was signed in 2003 and followed 4 Supplementary Agreements. Supplementary Agreement V was signed in July 2008. In the aspect of goods trade, the Mainland had implemented zero tariffs on Hong Kong/Macao originated goods. Besides, the Mainland has eased market access in 40 areas, including law and accounting. In terms of Trade and Investment Facilitation, cooperation has been developed in 9 fields between the Mainland and Hong Kong/Macao, such as trade/investment promotion and Customs facilitation. The implementation of CEPA and its Supplementary Agreements further enhances the level of economic and trade growth in Hong Kong and Macao.

In the 6th China-ASEAN high-level meeting, which was held in November 2001, the Framework Agreement on Comprehensive Economic Cooperation between China and ASEAN was agreed. 2 years later Agreement on Commodity Trade of China-ASEAN Free Trade Area (CAFTA) was signed and the Agreement was put into effective in July 2005. In 2010 and 2015, China will eliminate most of the tariffs on 6 old and 4 new members of ASEAN respectively. Since tariff reduction, the economic and trade cooperation between China and ASEAN has developed rapidly. Now the two parties focus on the negotiation on investment.

China-Chile Free Trade Agreement was signed in November 2005 and implemented in October 2006. According to the Agreement, tariffs on 97 percent tariff lines will be reduced to zero in 10 years. Supplementary Agreement on service trade was signed in Sanya on 13 April 2008 and it will help the two countries to open the service market mutually and improve the investment conditions to gain more benefits for their people.

China-Pakistan FTA was signed in November 2006, which was the major achievement in Chinese President’s visit to Pakistan. It was convinced that progressive reduction and elimination of trade barriers through the conclusion of a FTA, will facilitate a win-win scenario and mutual development of the two Parties. Now the two countries are on the phase of service trade negotiations.

China and New Zealand signed a FTA on 7 April 2008 and planed to put it into effect since 1 October 2008. The importance of this FTA can be categorized into four “Firsts”: New Zealand was the first country to complete bilateral negotiations for China’s entry into the WTO, the first country to recognise China’s status as a full market economy, the first developed country to open negotiations on a free trade zone with China, and the first developed country to complete a free trade agreement with China. These four “firsts” in the history of economic relations with China are especially eye-catching.

The development of China’s free trade areas plays an important economic and political role in China’s strategies of opening and pursuit of a harmonious world. This trade giant will take advantage of FTAs to achieve mutual benefits with other economies.

“China Free Trade Area Network” can be viewed at http://fta.mofcom.gov.cn.

“Considering that bilateral consultations between China and the US failed to solve concerns of China, China requested consultations with the US under the WTO dispute settlement mechanism regarding those measures,” the Chinese mission to the WTO said in a statement released on Friday.

Washington imposed the import tariffs arguing that China was selling those products in the US market at less than their normal value, a practice known as ‘dumping’ in WTO parlance. The WTO allows Members to try to counter the effects of dumping by imposing tariffs or other punitive measures against the offending country, but China argues that, in this case, the US has gone too far.

“After the anti-dumping and countervailing investigations by the US against the above mentioned products were initiated, China was highly concerned and has repeatedly articulated its position at various occasions, opposing the unfair practices of the US in those investigations,” the Chinese statement said.

China believes the import duties are “inconsistent with the obligations of the United States” under world trade laws, the country said in its official complaint.

The request for consultations with the US marks only the second time that China has independently launched a dispute at the WTO, although Beijing has been the target of a number of challenges in recent years.

In accordance with WTO dispute settlement process, the two parties will now have 60 days to resolve the matter through consultations. If no solution is found by the end of that period, then China can ask a panel of WTO judges to consider the case.

ICTSD reporting.

Chinese Version

Osram, the dominant CFL producer in Europe, requested permission to impose anti-dumping duties against Chinese exports in 2001. Measures were imposed the same year and were extended for another year last October. Because the deadline for submitting and extension application has already lapsed, the duties are now set to expire on 18 October.

It appears that Osram’s decision is in part based on a lack of political support in the EU. “We have had to concede…that we have not been able to secure a majority in Europe for the Osram position,” the company’s CEO Martin Goetzeler said in a statement.

Political pressure from a wide range of stakeholders - including environmentalist groups, retailers, consumers and business competitors - over the duties had been growing since they were imposed in 2001.

This pressure intensified last October when the anti-dumping duties were given a one year extension. “This is narrowly protectionist and sends a regressive message to developing country producers that they will be excluded from markets for cleaner products created by the higher environmental standards expected by European consumers,” said a WWF press release at the time.

In a July 2008 retailers roundtable, many business leaders - including Sir Terry Leahy of Tesco and Sören Hansen of Ikea - said the tariffs of up to 66 percent ensured that prices were “artificially inflated” when consumers reached the shops and this depressed demand for energy-saving bulbs.

The case has also attracted widespread attention because of the divide of Europe’s light bulb makers between those who have production plants in China and those focusing on local production in Europe. While Osram does have factories in China, production remains focussed in Europe. Philips Lighting and other EU producers with their main production facilities in Asia complain that the duties have been squeezing their profit margins. These companies have been fighting their own case at the EU Court of First Instance to have the anti-dumping duties scrapped completely.

Although the CFL anti-dumping case is coming to a close, analysts think it might serve as a proxy for revisiting some rules in EU anti-dumping measures. “This anti-dumping case has put forward the ongoing discussions on the decision making criteria and process to practice the definition of ‘EC community interests’,” says Xiaoyi Tang, a Brussels-based trade lawyer. Tang says the EU needs to not only strike a balance between producers, retailers and consumers, but also between trade policy instruments and broader community policy objectives such as climate security, social and environmental standards.

Some point out that obstacles to revise trade defence mechanisms are difficult to overcome. Min Shu, an economist at Fudan University, says the energy saving light bulb issue is just a small window for the complex political economy behind the EU anti-dumping measures. Shu says there are clashes between producers from EU member states (i.e., Netherlands-based Philips and Germany-based Osram in the light bulb case. He also says that the divide between the trade Commissioner and industry Commissioner can complicate matters, and points to the shelving of EU trade commissioner Peter Mandelson’s proposal to reform trade defence rules as an example.

ICTSD Reporting; “Osram drops EU call to extend Chinese bulb duties,” REUTERS, 11 Aug. 2008; “Europe can’t agree on anti-dumping rules,” INTERNATIONAL HERALD TRIBUNE, 13 Jan. 2008; “Retailers urge EU to scrap anti-dumping duties on energy-saving lightbulbs,” THE GUARDIAN, 21 July 2008; “Osram drops EU call to extend Chinese bulb duties,” REUTERS, 11 Aug. 2008; “EU allows China to export special globes sans duty,” HAITI NEWS, 12 Aug. 2008.

Chinese Version

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/.