  Martin Khor, South Centre Executive Director
BY RAMESH JAURA
IDN-InDepthNews Service
BERLIN (IDN) – In run-up to a critical global conference coming December in Denmark, the developing countries are not inclined to “suffer the slings and arrows” of a new and dangerous form of trade and technology protectionism fast emerging in the name of Climate Change. On way to Copenhagen, they are determined to “take arms against a sea of troubles, and by opposing end them”.
In fact they have no option other than opposing strong winds and rough seas on way to the United Nations climate change negotiations Dec. 7-18.
Martin Khor, executive director of the Geneva-based South Centre says the rise of ‘climate protectionism’ is “poisoning North-South relations in the two negotiating arenas on climate change and on trade”.
This “mother of new trade protection” is coming at a time of economic recession when world leaders have piously proclaimed they will not resort to trade protection, says Khor who until recently headed the eminently competent Third World Network based in Penang, Malaysia.
If climate protection is allowed, it will also open the floodgates to all kinds of protection by blocking developing country products on the basis of how they are made, cautions Khor.
“The climate-trade issue is thus explosive, and is opening a Pandora’s Box which threatens to contaminate the negotiations in the UNFCCC (Framework Convention on Climate Change) as well as the WTO (Word Trade Organization)," cautions the head of the intergovernmental think-tank of the developing countries.
Khor sees clear signs that some developed countries, especially the United States, are preparing to use unilateral trade measures, such as imposing tariffs, taxes or charges on the products of developing countries, on the grounds of combating climate change.
A bill passed this June by the U.S. House of Representatives -- the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009 (also known as the Waxman-Markey bill) -- gives the president authority to impose financial charges (or taxes) on some imports coming from developing countries that in Washingtons view are not taking enough action to curb their Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emissions that are known to contribute to global warming.
Khor points out that the U.S. House of Representatives has also sought protectionism against technology transfer through three bills it has adopted that prevent American negotiators in the UN climate change convention from agreeing to any relaxation in the rules or enforcement of intellectual property.
Khor writes: “There are signs that other developed countries, including in Europe, are also preparing the grounds for climate-linked protectionism.”
Significantly, the developing countries are starting to oppose these moves. The two biggest developing countries – India and China – have already attacked this part of the Waxman-Markey Bill as constituting “disguised protectionism and flouting the rules of the World Trade Organisation”.
India’s Environment Minister Jairam Ramesh has described carbon tariffs as “pernicious”. He said that climate change should not be negotiated at the WTO.
Yao Jian, a spokesperson of China’s Ministry of Commerce, on July 3 criticised developed countries for proposing to impose carbon tariffs. “China has consistently advocated that the international community faces climate change together, but some developed countries have advocated using carbon tariffs against imports,” he said.
“This violates basic WTO rules. It only pretends to protect the environment, but really it protects trade…To put out carbon tariff policies during the economic crisis and ahead of the annual climate change conference this year is not timely. It doesn’t strengthen faith in the international community’s cooperation against the crisis.”
In fact, the developing countries have taken up the issue at the climate talks leading up to Copenhagen. On Aug. 13, the G77 and China made a statement at the Bonn climate talks, warning developed countries not to adopt unilateral trade-restrictive measures, as these would contravene the Climate Change Convention’s provisions.
India also proposed text for the Copenhagen outcome that developed countries “shall not resort to any form of unilateral measures including countervailing border measures, against goods and services imported from developing countries on grounds of protection and stabilization of climate”.
The text listed many provisions of the UN Convention that would be violated if such measures are taken. This was supported by many countries, including China, Argentina, Brazil, Singapore, South Africa, Saudi Arabia, and by the G77 and China’s statement.
The South Bulletin says: In Geneva, many developing country diplomats are increasingly concerned about the likelihood of the U.S. and other developed countries making use of either tariffs or financial charges on imports of developing countries.
“Imposing extra tariffs or financial charges on imports on the basis of how the products are produced -- ‘process and production methods’ or PPMs in technical jargon -- is very controversial. It has been rejected by developing countries at the WTO since 1996 as a form of protectionism, which they say will unfairly curb developing countries’ exports. They also argue that it is against the rules of the WTO,” avers the South Bulletin.
Many developed countries however have wanted to make use of trade measures on environmental grounds. They are preparing the case that trade measures linked to PPMs are legitimate, or else climate-linked trade measures are allowed under the GATT’s general exception for the environment.
Developing countries claim that linking trade measures to climate and the environment are unjust because they have lower technological capacity and thus cannot match the developed countries. Developing countries should instead be assisted through technology transfer, but the IPR (International Property Rights) regime -- especially the TRIPS agreement -- is an obstacle.
“Before the situation deteriorates, developed countries should re-consider their moves on this issue, restrain the climate-protection forces in their society and commit instead to a ‘fair game’,” suggests Khor.
To make use of trade measures on climate change grounds would in effect be to punish developing countries for being less developed. They face barriers such as IPRs owned mainly by rich countries’ companies, lack of technology cooperation and little funds that prevent them from having low emission industrial production.
The developing countries thus become double victims -- of the effects of climate change, and of the developed countries’ measures that push the adjustment burden onto them. (IDN-InDepthNews/12.09.09)
Copyright © 2009 IDN-InDepthNews Service
-----
Related IDN artciles:
http://www.indepthnews.net/area2.php?key=cc
External Links:
http://www.unfccc.int
http://www.southcentre.org
|
