Trade Facilitation and Paperless Trade Implementation Survey 2015

The Global Survey on Trade Facilitation and Paperless Trade Implementation 2014-2015 is a global effort led by the Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific (ESCAP) in collaboration with the other four United Nations Regional Commissions, namely, the Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean (ECLAC), the Economic and Social Commission for Western Asia (ESCWA), the Economic Commission for Africa (ECA) and the Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE). The goal of the Global Survey is to gather information from the member states of the respective Regional Commissions on trade facilitation and paperless trade measures and strategies implemented at the national and regional levels. The results of the survey will enable countries and development partners to better understand and monitor progress on trade facilitation, support evidence-based public policies, share best practices and identify capacity building and technical assistance needs.

Potential and limitations of organic and fair trade cotton for improving livelihoods of smallholders: evidence from Central Asia

Cotton is a leading agricultural non-food commodity associated with soil degradation, water pollution and pesticide poisoning due to high levels of agrochemical inputs. Organic farming is often promoted as a means of addressing the economic, environmental and health risks of conventional cotton production, and it is slowly gaining ground in the global cotton market. Organic and fair trade cotton are widely seen as opportunities for smallholder farmers to improve their livelihoods thanks to higher returns, lower input costs and fewer risks. Despite an increasing number of studies comparing the profitability of organic and non-organic farming systems in developing and industrialized countries, little has been published on organic farming in Central Asia. The aim of this article is to describe the economic performance and perceived social and environmental impacts of organic cotton in southern Kyrgyzstan, drawing on a comparative field study conducted by the author in 2009. In addition to economic and environmental aspects, the study investigated farmers’ motivations toward and assessment of conversion to organic farming. Cotton yields on organic farms were found to be 10% lower, while input costs per unit were 42% lower; as a result, organic farmers’ cotton revenues were 20% higher. Due to lower input costs as well as organic and fair trade price premiums, the average gross margin from organic cotton was 27% higher. In addition to direct economic benefits, organic farmers enjoy other benefits, such as easy access to credit on favorable terms, provision of uncontaminated cottonseed cooking oil and cottonseed cake as animal feed, and marketing support as well as extension and training services provided by newly established organic service providers. The majority of organic farmers perceive improved soil quality, improved health conditions, and positively assess their initial decision to convert to organic farming. The major disadvantage of organic farming is the high manual labor input required. In the study area, where manual farm work is mainly women's work and male labor migration is widespread, women are most affected by this negative aspect of organic farming. Altogether, the results suggest that, despite the inconvenience of a higher workload, the advantages of organic farming outweigh its disadvantages and that conversion to organic farming improves the livelihoods of small-scale farmers.

Landscape mosaics maps as a basis for spatial assessment and negotiation of ecosystem services and their trade-offs at the meso-scale: Examples from Laos, Madagascar and China

Mapping ecosystem services (ES) and their trade-offs is a key requirement for informed decision making for land use planning and management of natural resources that aim to move towards increasing the sustainability of landscapes. The negotiations of the purposes of landscapes and the services they should provide are difficult as there is an increasing number of stakeholders active at different levels with a variety of interests present on one particular landscape.Traditionally, land cover data is at the basis for mapping and spatial monitoring of ecosystem services. In light of complex landscapes it is however questionable whether land cover per se and as a spatial base unit is suitable for monitoring and management at the meso-scale. Often the characteristics of a landscape are defined by prevalence, composition and specific spatial and temporal patterns of different land cover types. The spatial delineation of shifting cultivation agriculture represents a prominent example of a land use system with its different land use intensities that requires alternative methodologies that go beyond the common remote sensing approaches of pixel-based land cover analysis due to the spatial and temporal dynamics of rotating cultivated and fallow fields.Against this background we advocate that adopting a landscape perspective to spatial planning and decision making offers new space for negotiation and collaboration, taking into account the needs of local resource users, and of the global community. For this purpose we introduce landscape mosaicsdefined as new spatial unit describing generalized land use types. Landscape mosaics have allowed us to chart different land use systems and land use intensities and permitted us to delineate changes in these land use systems based on changes of external claims on these landscapes. The underlying idea behindthe landscape mosaics is to use land cover data typically derived from remote sensing data and to analyse and classify spatial patterns of this land cover data using a moving window approach. We developed the landscape mosaics approach in tropical, forest dominated landscapesparticularly shifting cultivation areas and present examples ofour work from northern Laos, eastern Madagascarand Yunnan Province in China.

Rezension zu: Inge Govaere and Hanns Ulrich (eds.): Intellectual Property, Public Policy and International Trade

The contemporary intellectual property rights (IPR) system is not a simple, smoothly working block of rules but is complex and full of ambiguities, and as many argue, imperfections. Some deficits relate on the one hand to the inherent centrality of authorship, originality and mercantilism to the ‘Western’ IP model, which leaves numerous non-Western, collaborative or folkloric modes of production outside the scope of protection. On the other hand, some imperfections stem from the way IPR are granted, whereby creators acquire a temporary monopoly over their works and thus exclude the public from having access to them. In this sense, it is often uncertain whether the existent IPR model appropriately reflects the precarious balance between private and public interests, and whether the best incentives to promote creativity and innovation - the initially stated objectives of intellectual property protection - are offered. The matter becomes still more complicated when one considers that the IPR system is not domestically contained but is globalised and strongly affected by rules at the regional and international levels. The question of whether the balance between private interests and public values is sustained within the international legal framework, epitomised by the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) of the World Trade Organization (WTO), is precisely the topic of the book reviewed here. Review of Intellectual Property, Public Policy, and International Trade, edited by Inge Govaere and Hanns Ullrich, P.I.E. Peter Lang, 2007.

The Dialectical Relationship of Preferential and Multilateral Trade Agreements

Preferentialism and multilateralism are not two independent and succinct avenues in the pur-suit of market access and regulatory policies. They historically build upon each other in a dialectical process, closely related and linked through regulatory bridges and references. They influence and direct each other in various ways. The paper mainly focuses on the evolution of international protection of intellectual property rights and of services. The multilateral regulation of the TRIPS and others derive from years of regulatory experience and high numbers of preferential agreements across the globe. The GATS and others, on the other hand, have entered the pluri- or multilateral stage early. Once regulation has reached the mul-tilateral stage, preferentialism focuses on WTO-plus and -extra commitments. Both areas, however, show close interaction. The principle of MFN ensures that multilateralism and preferentialism do not evolve independently from each other. It produces significant spill-over effects of preferential agreements. Such effects and the need to develop uniform and coherent regulatory standards have led in parallel to a number of preferential, plurilateral and multilateral regulatory initiatives. We submit that the process will eventually encourage the return to multilateralism and negotiations in international fora, in particular the WTO while traditional market access may stay with preferential relations among Nations. Such burden-sharing between different regulatory fora should be reflected in future WTO rules providing the overall backbone of the system.

Human rights and international trade

Economic globalization and respect for human rights are both highly topical issues. In theory, more trade should increase economic welfare and protection of human rights should ensure individual dignity. Both fields of law protect certain freedoms: economic development should lead to higher human rights standards, and UN embargoes are used to secure compliance with human rights agreements. However the interaction between trade liberalisation and human rights protection is complex, and recently, tension has arisen between these two areas. Do WTO obligations covering intellectual property prevent governments from implementing their human rights obligations, including rights to food or health? Is it fair to accord the benefits of trade subject to a clean human rights record? This book first examines the theoretical framework of the interaction between the disciplines of international trade law and human rights. It builds upon the well-known debate between Professor Ernst-Ulrich Petersmann, who construes trade obligations as human rights, and Professor Philip Alston, who warns of a merger and acquisition of human rights by trade law. From this starting point, further chapters explore the differing legal matrices of the two fields and examine how cooperation between them might be improved, both in international law-making and institutions,in dispute settlement. The interaction between trade and human rights is then explored through seven case studies:freedom of expression and competition law; IP protection and health; agricultural trade and the right to food; trade restrictions on conflict WHO convention on tobacco control; and, finally, human rights conditionalities in preferential trade schemes.

Carbon dioxide emissions and international trade at the turn of the millennium

We present a new dataset of geographical production-, final (embodied) production-, and consumption-based carbon dioxide emission inventories, covering 78 regions and 55 sectors from 1997 to 2011. We extend previous work both in terms of time span and in bridging from geographical to embodied production and, ultimately, to consumption. We analyse the recent evolution of emissions, the development of carbon efficiency of the global economy, and the role of international trade. As the distribution of responsibility for emissions across countries is key to the adoption and implementation of international environmental agreements and regulations, the final production- and consumption-based inventories developed here provide a valuable extension to more traditional geographical production-based criteria.

Exploring intra-commonwealth goods and services trade

A background paper for the Commonwealth Secretariat by Anirudh Shingal and Mohammad Razzaque: Existing work examining the trade effect of commonwealth membership does not account for sample selection, unobserved heterogeneity and multilateral resistance in estimation, leading to biased estimates. Our analyses improve on all these fronts. Unlike earlier work, we also consider services trade and assemble a much larger sample of trading partners (242 x 242, over 1995-2010). Commonwealth membership is found to increase goods exports by 18.5-33.2% and services exports by 42.8% in our results, ceteris paribus and on average. Our analyses on the determinants of intra-commonwealth trade suggest the positive role of common language (only for goods trade) and colonial relationships as well as the negative impact of geography, thereby confirming that commonwealth member states are not natural trading partners for each other. Finally, being one of Australia, Canada or the UK is associated with 98.2% greater merchandise trade than the commonwealth average; however, a similar effect is not observed for services trade.

To fuse or not to fuse? Assessing the case for convergent disciplines on goods and services trade

Think piece by Pierre Sauvé for the E15 Initiative on Strengthening the Global Trade System In his latest essay for the ICTSD-World Economic Forum E15 initiative on Strengthening the Global Trade and Investment System for Sustainable Development, WTI Director of External Programmes and Academic Partnerships and faculty member Pierre Sauvé explores the case for fusing the law of goods with that of services in a world of global value chains. The paper does so by directing attention to the questions of whether the current architectures of multilateral and preferential trade governance are compatible with a world of trade in tasks; whether the existing rules offer globally active firms a coherent structure for doing business in a predictable environment; whether it is feasible to redesign the structure and content of existing trade rules to align them to the reality of production fragmentation; and what steps can be envisaged to better align policy and realities in the marketplace if the prospects for restructuring appear unfavourable. The paper argues that fusing trade disciplines for goods and services is neither needed nor feasible and may actually deflect attention from a number of worthwhile policy initiatives where more realistic (if never easily secured) prospects of generic rule-making may well exist.