Climate accord betrays the vulnerable

By Bhaskar Goswami
20 Dec 2009

Obama with EU leaders at Copenhagen (photo courtesy: Telegraph)


The climate deal hastily put together by the BASIC countries and the USA gives license to the rich countries to continue polluting the planet, thereby rewarding them instead of imposing penalty for their climate crimes.

Crunch times call for desperate measures. This time round, it demanded trusting politicians for reaching a deal on climate change. Well, they did reach a deal but not one on saving the climate but on betrayal of climate justice. The clinically depressing document has reaffirmed that none of the political leaders landed at Copenhagen with a heart to do good.

After burning midnight oil, some hung-over from feasting at the Danish Queen’s do, and some sober heads produced a please-the-rich-countries draft. It allows these countries to continue polluting, ensures that some, if not all, vulnerable island nations will submerge, and postpones a deal by a year till a meeting at Mexico happens next November. By that time, citizens of Tuvalu, Kiribati and Maldives, among others, would be on their knees desperately seeking rehabilitation and citizenship in distant nations.

The deal is a document drafted by developed countries in consultation with India, China, Brazil and South Africa – the BASIC bloc. It is a reflection of how farcical norms rule the roost at multilateral negotiations, be it the WTO, WIPO or, in this case, UNFCCC. The UN has completely failed to uphold democratic norms and has instead allowed itself to be dictated by countries that control its purse strings.

The UN Secretary General said that the “finishing line is in sight”. For the island nations and billions of farmers in the developing world, this finishing line translates to an endgame for their livelihood and culture. President Obama calls it a “meaningful” agreement that will serve as a roadmap to future wherein all countries will have to figure out how best to serve the cause of the planet. Sorry Mr. President, what the deal does is to uphold the right of the mighty United States to continue polluting the planet.


But then President Obama presides over a nation that is unwilling to pay heed to his personal calls to reduce emissions. The US Congress and Senate have steadfastly blocked all attempts to put in place a climate change and emission control regime, so he might be a bit hamstrung. Nothing similar of this nature prevails in the case of the EU where, barring Poland, most nations were open to undertake deeper emission cuts. But then, once the US set the trend, why would the EU volunteer to shoulder the burden of its transatlantic brethren?

What about the other major polluters – China and India? Both can vie with each other when it comes to flaunting weak environmental norms – some of the so-called banana republics have a better record of protecting the environment than these two. Here’s a rain check on what the Indian delegation is peddling as a pyrrhic victory engineered by the BASIC bloc:

Emission Cuts: The US gets away with 14-17% reduction on 2005 levels i.e. 3-4% of the 1990 levels; EU, Japan and Russia agree to predetermined 1990 level cuts (Europeans now are the only binding carbon regime in the world). Target for 2050 suddenly goes missing from the text! Further, these emission cuts are not binding.

Temperature: Cap at 2 degrees. So what if more than 100 nations (a majority, if it were ever put to vote at UNFCCC) wanted it capped at 1.5 degrees or the fact that many island nations will go under at this higher level of temperature increase.

Peaking of Carbon Emission: No dates set. This is to please the BASIC bloc at the expense of the rest of the developing economies. Don’t believe it? Well, this is how the text goes: “We should co-operate in achieving the peaking of global and national emissions as soon as possible, recognising that the time frame for peaking will be longer in developing countries”. Can anything get vaguer than this?


Finally, the Moolah! Don’t read much into the $100bn announcement by Hillary Clinton; she herself is not sure how and where from this money will be raised in the first place. While promises of climate adaptation funds have been made in the past and gone undelivered, this deal is offering $30 billion over the next three years. Now, was this not what Gordon Brown was working on for the past few days at Bella Centre? Brown must realise that while he may have achieved partial success in leading the revival of the world banking system, climate change is an entirely different ballgame. A closer look at the annexure reveals that not only the contributions of Japan, EU and US do not add up to $30 billion, the US’ offer is a paltry $3.6 billion!

Ostensibly on Clinton’s announcement, the text says, “Developed countries set a goal of mobilising jointly $100bn a year by 2020 to address needs of developing countries.” Nicely put, but exactly how many US’ corporations will stand to benefit from this?


President Obama along with the BASIC bloc lackeys turned the negotiations into a wrestling bout. Not only will the US be legally allowed to continue polluting the planet, they will not have to pay any significant penalties for it either. The industrial domination of rich countries will continue while the planet will pay the price for it.

December 2010, Mexico City is where this sell-off deal will be granted legitimacy. This is yet another multilateral deal that overlooked the legitimate demands of more than 100 developing countries and muzzled dissent. Democracy was never at play during the two weeks of COP 15 negotiations and a deal brokered between the US and four BASIC bloc nations was thrust on the world as a consensus. Thankfully, even with a fractured coalition, the G77 refused to endorse the deal.

Yet again India played up to the politics of rich nations and deserted the developing countries. It actively participated in allowing an eraser to be run over unresolved issues in square brackets of the text. Today it stands responsible for the cracks in the G77 and at a later date may have to pay a heavy price at other multilateral platforms of negotiations, especially the WTO. While Jairam Ramesh and Mamohan Singh might gloat over their achievement at this disastrous summit, the truth is otherwise and the world knows. By endorsing this deal, India has sleepwalked into a global disaster.

Legitimacy of WTO hangs by a thread

By Michelle Pressend
30 Nov 2009

WTO Ministerial at Geneva is an opportunity for the world leaders to bring transparency and balance in the working of the institution, which has long been favouring developed nations and their multinational corporations.

I'm in Geneva, Switzerland and wrote this article on the eve of the 7th World Trade Organisation (WTO) Ministerial meeting taking place from 27 November to 2 December 2009 at the WTO's head quarters.

I've also just returned from a protest march against the WTO here in Geneva, attended by many people, including activists from many parts of the world.

The march was, unfortunately, marred by a handful of violent protestors on the fringes of the main demonstration. They've been getting the lion's share of media attention. But to set the record straight, the majority of the 2,000-strong crowd participating in the protest march against the WTO was good-natured, well-organized and have legitimate concerns.

This WTO Ministerial meeting is different from previous ones. Ministers are coming together, not to negotiate, but to "take stock" of the WTO as the international trade organization governing multilateral trade rules.

The main theme that the meeting is being conducted under is "WTO the Multilateral Trading System and the Current Global Economic Environment." The agenda will be examining the state of play of the Doha Round of negotiations and a way forward; the role of the WTO in protectionism stemming from the global financial and economic crisis and finally, there will be an important focus on the need for reform in the WTO.

Since its inception in 1995, the rules and negotiations of the WTO have been littered with controversy. Indeed, the very nature of WTO policies, based on trade liberalization and deregulation, are central to the current global economic crisis.

This WTO Ministerial meeting is different from previous ones. Ministers are coming together, not to negotiate, but to "take stock" of the WTO.
The WTO is one of the most powerful multilateral institutions in the world. Its trade rules are binding. Once governments' commit their countries to WTO agreements, they are bound to its rules at the national level. If countries wish to renege on their commitments because they may, for example, be in conflict with national development priorities, these countries must pay a compensation fee and/or face dispute settlement.

These rules are unbalanced and biased in favour of developed countries and their multinational companies. They have gained much under this global trading system. Moreover, they are seeking further market access in developing countries, not only for trade in goods, but also in services. Developed countries increasingly come up with new rules or concepts to commit developing countries to further opening up their markets.

They tend to ignore the fact that they have a competitive advantage built on years of support from subsidies, tariffs and other economic instruments. Basically, developed countries 'over produce' and since their markets have become saturated; are constantly seeking new avenues to extend these markets into developing countries.

Developing countries pay a heavy price through job losses, a decline in the manufacturing industries and productive sectors, as well as losing revenue to huge capital outflows.

Thus, the neoliberal policies of the WTO accelerate the process of premature de-industrialisation in developing countries and the extremely high inequality that many of these countries experience.

The neoliberal policies of the WTO accelerate the process of premature de-industrialisation and extremely high inequality in developing countries.
Moreover, it is widely acknowledged that rich countries, which have been the rule-makers at the WTO, are also the rule-breakers. These governments continue to subsidize their agricultural sectors and were quick to bail out their banks during the financial crisis.

The fear of protectionism is of major concern to the WTO machinery in terms of measures to address the economic crisis and some developing countries, including South Africa, are calling for an assessment of stimulus packages, as they may be contravening the General Agreement of Trade in Service (GATS) rules.

This assessment seeks to determine whether disciplined measures should be considered and is a tactical intervention, which could expose how the major powers are potentially contravening the very own rules they were instrumental in creating.

But there are other challenges related to the nature of the GATS rules, including the ability of governments' to regulate service policies. Thus, the assessment of the stimulus packages and the extent to which trade in services are affected should be used as an opportunity for transformation, rather than an attempt to beat the major players at their own game.

Many countries are also bent on a "speedy and successful conclusion of the Doha round." This is despite the fact that Doha commitments, particularly tariffs cuts, will destroy developing countries' industrial sectors as well as prevent the development of industrial policy.

Some members will use this opportunity to call for commitments for liberalization in energy services to address climate change. But countries should desist any such discussion. Environmental goods and services should not have been in the WTO in the first place. The environmental goods and services sector (EGS) is notably amongst the most rapidly growing industries in the world and access to new markets is vital to developed countries. WTO disciplines in the energy sector could reduce the flexibility and 'policy space' needed by countries to make an effective transition from a dependence on fossil fuels to cleaner and more renewable energy sources.

The environmental goods and services sector (EGS) is notably amongst the most rapidly growing industries in the world and access to new markets is vital to developed countries.

"If completed on current terms, the Doha Round will aggravate the problems of our economies. It will also take away the very policy instruments needed (and being applied) to address the current crises and to prevent similar crises in the future," argued the Africa Trade Network, a network of African civil society organizations in their statement of positions and demands, at their preparatory meeting in Cape Town in the run up to the WTO meeting.

Finally, concerning the institutional reform of the WTO. This is a necessary discussion, particularly in terms of shifting the balance of power as well as producing greater transparency in decision-making processes.

It will be a missed opportunity if this meeting does not discuss a process for addressing the fundamental principles and rules that maintain the unbalanced nature and inequities of this institution, which privileges developed countries and their multinationals.

The world needs a multilateral trading system, but one based on justice and equity. It should also be one which ensures that the interests of developing countries are met and that development policy space is guaranteed, especially the economic incentives needed to shift our economies in favour of the productive sectors.