by Victor Menotti, DCJ US Coordinator
Collapse of World Trade Organization’s 13th Ministerial (WTO MC13) is good news for climate justice because the Abu Dhabi agenda was old free-trade-wine in new greenwashed-bottles.
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) reports 40% of global GHG emissions have happened since WTO was established in 1995, with WTO’s export-driven economic model intensifying use of fossil fuels while reducing protections for the environment and equity. If trade ministers want to help counter today’s climate crisis, they should support UN climate convention commitments for the transfer of climate-friendly technologies by allowing developing countries to waive monopoly patent rights enforced by WTO’s Agreement on Trade Related Intellectual Property Rights.
Too many trade ministers still see more “trade in environmental goods and services” as their main solution on offer. Given the disaster for small farmers resulting from 30 years of WTO rules on farm subsidies, and now seeing the similar disaster that would befall small-scale fisherfolk from WTO’s proposed rules on fisheries subsidies, we are relieved there is no new WTO mandate to now take up fossil fuel subsidies; this urgent challenge must happen in another venue guaranteeing their equitable elimination.
Outcomes from Abu Dhabi for WTO’s Committee on Trade and Environment (CTE) almost included language to keep WTO from expanding its mandate over climate and energy policies, emphasizing instead that trade officials explore the impacts of unilateral trade measures in climate policies by developed countries that unfairly hit developing countries.
The Philippines had proposed a paragraph for the official outcome document, but ultimately was not accepted, calling for WTO’s CTE “foster dialogue…on trade related aspects of environmental measures and their effects on market access, and on experiences of environmental and climate technology transfer, particularly focusing on needs of developing and least developed countries.”
The EU’s Green New Deal imposes a Carbon Border Adjustment Measure (CBAM) to “establish a level playing field” between European companies and imports from countries with lower pollution standards.
However, UNCTAD studies show CBAM would prevent only 0.1 percent of global emissions while raising revenue in the EU by $2.5 billion yet costing developing countries $5.9 billion, resulting in a substantial transfer of wealth from rich to poor.
Developed countries should instead deliver on their commitments from thirty years ago in the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) to provide finance and technology to developing countries who have much less historical responsibility for creating today’s climate crisis. For example, North America’s 4% of the global population is responsible for almost 25% of the global emissions since 1850, whereas Southern Asia’s 25% of the global population produced only 4% of the global emissions, according to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
WTO’s most significant contribution to countering today’s climate crisis could be to facilitate UNFCCC commitments for the transfer of climate-friendly technologies by allowing developing countries to waive patent rights enforced by WTO’s Agreement on Trade Related Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS). TRIPs currently keeps costs too high for developing countries who want to use cleaner technologies.