Center for Governance and Sustainability

at the University of Massachusetts Boston

Leap Forward

pg.32: They should dedicate themselves in 2010-11 to taking a synchronized, systemic leap forward in international cooperation in which: . . . Emerging and least developed economies win voting rights in the Bretton Woods institutions approximating their weight in the world economy, as well as major, sustained increases in aid for the Millennium Development Goals and climate adaptation, and greater access to developed countries’ agricultural markets, and major new public and private investment from developed countries in low-carbon energy systems as compared to the Kyoto Accord’s Clean Development Mechanism.

 

Readers' Guide Comment on “greater access to developed countries agricultural markets”

There were four discrete targets for enhanced multilateral legal frameworks that Davos advocated for 2010-11. None of them were implemented. Most did not even have a strong OECD governmental or corporate advocate in the biennium.

The proposal for greater access to developed country agricultural markets has been presented on and off for over 50 years and in four GATT/WHO trade negotiation rounds. 1 The proposal has been regularly blocked by agribusinesses and the major OECD states. Its inclusion here seems to reflect that many of these so called ‘new’ multilateral legal frameworks are presented more as appeals to developing countries to accept the new WEF global governance framework than as serious proposals for new legal frameworks.

Readers' Guide Comment on “take a synchronized, systemic leap forward [in various ways] as compared to the Kyoto Accord’s Clean Development Mechanism”

No arguments are presented in the report about the failure of Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) to deliver on any of its goals; WEF is probably expressing its support for the Copenhagen Accord rather than the Kyoto Protocol.

Related Ideas: Four Building Blocks; Options for managing economic globalization 

The Readers' Guide welcomes comments with alternative examples or counter examples, supplemental assessments of the extracted GRI text or commentary – critical or otherwise – of the above interpretation of GRI’s perspective.

Submit Comment



Is the University of Massachusetts Boston in New York?

* Please note only your name and comment will be displayed publicly on this page.