Industrial emissions are a major source of CO2 contributing to climate change. Photo: United Nations Photo (flickr)

The ongoing global financial crisis should not impede the fight against climate change. That's the concern coming from a surprising corner of the world: China.

As the latest round of UN-sponsored climate talks continue in Durban, South Africa, Chinese officials warn that financial hardships in Europe, the United States and elsewhere are no excuse for inaction on climate change.

With the Kyoto Protocol about to die, the global financial crisis could add another dimension to the already complex relationship between rich and poor countries when it comes to climate change.

China’s top climate official said a global pact to fight climate change should be a top priority for developed countries, even as they face severe economic challenges at home. "After the financial crisis, every country has had its problems, but these problems are just temporary," Xie Zhenhua, vice-director of the National Development and Reform Commission, told reporters, according to Reuters. He expressed concern that rich countries will break their promises to help poor ones mitigate and adapt to climate change.

According to The Economist, the vast majority of ‘climate finance’ for developing countries comes from western nations. Over $75 billion a year, or more than 75 percent of climate finance to the developing world, comes from a combination of private donors and multilateral and bilateral banks funded by taxpayers in wealthy countries. These sources have been hit the hardest by the global financial crisis.

"Climate change hasn't become less important because of the international financial crisis, but it has become less prominent," Xie said.

Developing countries, meanwhile, would be hit hardest by climate-related disasters. They lack the infrastructure and financial resources to deal with problems they have had less of a hand in causing. The 2010 climate talks in Cancun included a commitment of $30 billion to poorer nations to adapt to impacts of climate change, and an increase to $100 billion a year by 2020 for this ‘green climate fund.’ Now, says China, even the initial $30 billion commitment seems unlikely to be met.

China might seem an unlikely voice of support for carbon cuts, as it has surpassed the United States as the world’s leading producer of CO2 emissions. Under the Kyoto protocol, China was deemed an emerging economy, and not bound to the stipulations placed on developed countries. Yet China has pledged to reduce its emissions intensity by 40 to 45 percent by 2020, and hopes western countries sign on for an extension of the protocol’s commitment period. Kyoto signatories Canada and Japan have already refused to extend the protocol’s requirements. The United States has also said further negotiations are off the table.

That means the Durban discussions themselves may well determine the direction of climate funding and its impacts. And without climate action, the financial crisis could soon seem like a small-scale problem.

Erik Mandell is a graduate of Middlebury College in Vermont. He is currently pursuing a master's degree in public administration and global leadership at Portland State. Read his other contributions to Global Envision.

India — a leading producer of generic medicines — has earned the title, "pharmacy of the developing world." Photo: iwishmynamewasmarsha (flickr)

Medical experts fear that clauses in the EU-India Free Trade Agreement (FTA) could leave millions of the world's most vulnerable people without access to the lifeline India presently provides: cheap, generic medicines, reports Al Jazeera.

The debate over generic drugs goes to the heart of the way medicines are produced and distributed around the world. India's pharmaceutical industry makes most of its money producing cheap generic versions of drugs patented by its Western counterparts, bypassing a system designed to ensure drug developers are rewarded with a period of exclusive sales rights for new medicines.

The patent system is supposed to incentivize the production of new treatments and ensure that research costs are recouped. But it also creates a monopoly, allowing drug companies to charge whatever they see fit for their products…

The concern is that the FTA may disallow India from continuing to sidestep this system. This could limit the capacity of India's generics industry to produce and distribute these cheap medicines, which are primarily channeled to other developing countries.

India's pro-public health laws allow multiple manufacturers to compete for India’s medicines market. According to an opinion piece written for the Bankok Post by Paul Cawthorne of Médecins Sans Frontières' campaign for essential medicines, this has driven "prices for the most-affordable drug combination down by more than 99 percent over the last decade."

That India can provide essential medicines at this price explains the fact that at least half of Africa’s five million AIDS patients already undergoing treatment use Indian-made generic drugs, says to Dr. Hans Hogerzeil, who heads the World Health Organization's essential medicines and pharmaceutical policies department.

The millions who comprise this demographic stand to loose the most, as the "data exclusivity" provision of the FTA could make cheap generics significantly less accessible. It appears that this provision will effectively copyright data collected during clinical trials in a drug’s originator country, according to the Al Jazeera article. If this occurs, Indian generic drug manufacturers will be forced to choose one of two options to gain approval for marketing their generic version of a drug: Either wait for up to 10 years until the period of exclusivity ends, or re-conduct already-completed trials. Both options would likely hike up the prices and delay the market entry of essential medicines.

The European Commission (EC) says the purpose of this clause is to protect the intellectual property rights of the patent-holding pharmaceutical companies (mostly Western and transnational). Given that the clinical trials are so costly and long-lasting, this motive is logical. But according to Al Jazeera, members of the medical community suspect that in fact, the data exclusivity clause is a masked effort to buffer the profits of these companies from the competition India’s generics industry introduces.

The EC has yet to formally release the fine print, though the FTA is expected to be finalized by the end of 2010 or early 2011, according to Intellectual Property Watch, an independent news service which focuses on intellectual property policies. The Commission is steadfast (if vague) in its claims that these agreements will not adversely affect the Indian generic drug industry:

The EU fully acknowledges India's right and capacity to manufacture and export life-saving medicines to other developing countries facing public health problems. The [intellectual property rights] provisions proposed in the EU-India FTA are not intended to weaken this.

Only when the FTA is finalized will its full impact on India's generics industry be felt, and will it become clear whether or not India will be able to maintain its vital position as the "pharmacy of the developing world."

First, food and fuel prices skyrocketed, causing serious problems for families in the developing world. Now, the worldwide credit crisis has delivered yet another serious blow to the economic outlook for low and middle-income countries.

At the start of the International Monetary Fund/World Bank annual meeting, World Bank President Robert Zoellick warned that the triple threat is potentially a “tipping point” that would “push poor people to the brink of survival.” World finance and development ministers urged wealthier governments not to ignore aid commitments in the midst of their own economic woes. The World Bank has developed a list of 28 of the countries most vulnerable to the triple threat of increased food and fuel prices and the financial crisis.

Not suprisingly, 13 out the 28 countries on this list are in Africa. But sub-Saharan Africa may avoid the worst of the global financial meltdown. A recent article in the Economist points out that the region has a number of things working in its favor. These include a highly regulated banking sector that is relatively unlinked to the Western financial system and natural resources that are drawing investment from countries like China, India and the United States.

Back in January, two IMF staffers noted that investor confidence in Africa was on the rise. Still, it's hard to argue that Africa can continue to make as much progress without outside help, like the promised $350 million more in agricultural loans from the 185-country-owned World Bank. “The stark reality," Zoellick says, "is that developing countries must prepare for a drop in trade, capital flows, remittances, and domestic investment, as well as a slowdown in growth."

WTO talks fail after seven years of negotiations with mixed reception. Photo: Strauber (flickr)

World Trade Organization (WTO) negotiations in Geneva collapsed last week, ending the hope of many for a new global deal to open markets, reduce farm subsidies and strengthen the international trading system.

This meeting was the latest attempt at talks, which began at Doha, Qatar, in 2001. Supporters of the Doha round, including the World Bank and European Commission, say that a deal would have been a defense against the protectionist strategies they fear will occur as economies struggle globally.

Now they worry that Doha’s failure hurts the credibility of the WTO, which has traditionally determined and enforced the rules of international commerce. The current failure may also damage other international agreements, including those related to global warming. Some economists predict that after the failure of these negotiations, hopes of small countries for gaining better access to consumers in the developed world may be dashed — another deal won’t come for years, if ever.

But others say a Doha conclusion would have been terrible for developing countries.

From the beginning of the Doha Round, through Cancun, Hong Kong to Geneva, the definition of "successful" negotiations has depended on where you sat at the trade table. Of course the USA and EU have some of the largest farm subsidies in the world, and refused further farm subsidy cuts, despite developing countries insistence on protecting their countries' food self-sufficiency from foreign dumping of subsidized agricultural surpluses during a time of rising food prices and global food shortages.

Deborah James, Director of the International Programs for the Center for Economic and Policy Research (CEPR) says of Doha, “The tariff cuts demanded of developing countries would have caused massive job loss, and countries would have lost the ability to protect farmers from dumping, further impoverishing millions on the verge of survival.”

The United Nations Conference on Trade and Development estimates that only corporations in developed countries would have profited from the Doha Round, leaving developing nations with most of the cost and none of the benefits. Bolivian president Evo Morales warned, "The WTO negotiations have turned into a fight by developed countries to open markets in developing countries to favor their big companies."

Morales' fears were not unfounded as the U.S., India and China reached an impasse in the failed talks over measures to protect farmers in developing countries from competition from imports.

The global press has responded by exaggerating the conflict and attempting to assign blame for the failed talks. Representatives from the countries involved have joined the fray, trying to spin the outcome to paint themselves in a favorable light.

In some articles, China and India are being blamed for their overconfidence in their new development and therefore too aggressive in advancing their interests to reach a compromise. In others articles, rich industrial powers like the United States and the EU are being blamed for refusing to share with the new powerhouses and refusing to compromise, even though they no longer have the power to push deals through unilaterally.

What is clear is that what is needed now is a new approach for global trade agreements that fairly promote both sustainable commerce and communities worldwide.

Interesting article about migration from one low-income country to another. In 2005, two World Bank researchers determined that an estimated two in five migrants traveled to urban areas of relative wealth outside rich countries.

One reason why outsiders pay little attention is that most poor migrants do not move far. Roughly half of all South-East Asian migrants are thought to have remained in the neighbourhood, and nearly two-thirds of migrants from eastern Europe and Central Asia have stayed in their own region. Nearly 70% of migrants from sub-Saharan Africa remain on their continent.

Migration experts believe climate change is a key contributor to such high migration rates:

“There is a direct impact on migration. You see people leaving sub-Saharan Africa in search of more habitable land,” says Mr Ameur, the minister for Moroccans abroad.