The science of climate change is becoming firmer, more widely accepted and, in some areas, more worrying.

After a fortnight of often tortuous negotiations, and an additional day at the end, 190-odd countries have decided that a global agreement involving all countries is needed to tackle climate change.
As reported by Economist.com, the “Bali roadmap“, named after the Indonesian island where the deal was struck, is an important milestone. Rich, middle-income and poor countries have acknowledged both the threat of a changing climate and the need for urgent action by all. Substantive negotiations will start within weeks to produce an international convention by the end of 2009 on exactly how countries will meet their “common but differentiated responsibilities“ to fight climate change.
Although the roadmap does not state it explicitly, on the insistence of the still somewhat skeptical United States, Canada and Japan, the negotiations will be guided by four scientific reports produced this year by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. These concluded that the planet will probably be in serious trouble--rising temperatures, acidic seas and changing rainfall patterns, among other problems--unless global emissions of greenhouse gases peak within 10 to 15 years and then decline thereafter.
There will be four main pillars to the negotiations. Mitigation, or emissions reduction, will be at the heart of the deal. Developed countries, which are historically responsible for the vast majority of greenhouse-gases, will probably have to cut their emissions by as much as 40 percent by 2020. Developing countries will be expected to pursue more carbon-friendly development strategies. They will also get special financing from industrialized states to help to adapt to the threats of rising seas, more frequent extreme weather events, falling crop yields and increased migration. Finally, technology will be offered to poorer nations to help them to cut their emissions.
Another important decision was to include in the new regime emissions from deforestation and land degradation. These account for 20 percent of global emissions and were excluded from current mechanisms to obtain financial rewards from reducing emissions. The aim is for the new deal to be ratified by all countries by the end of 2012, when the first phase of the Kyoto protocol expires.
Reaching agreement just to start negotiating might not sound much of an achievement. But it is--even if the roadmap is insufficiently ambitious for most non-governmental organisations. America’s George Bush has been reluctant even to discuss climate change, but he has now signed up to talks, if unwillingly. Similarly China, soon to be the world’s largest greenhouse-gas emitter, was, until this year, an obdurate opponent of negotiating beyond Kyoto.
In Bali, Beijing was repeatedly praised for engaging constructively. And Australia’s new Prime Minister Kevin Rudd received plaudits for ratifying the Kyoto protocol immediately after taking office on December 3.
Various factors have produced the changes of heart. The science of climate change is becoming firmer, more widely accepted and, in some areas, more worrying. In some places the impact of climate change may already be felt. It helps, too, that the new United Nations secretary-general, Ban Ki-moon, along with firms and campaigners such as Al Gore, have been speaking out more loudly about the threat of climate change.
A sense of urgency was palpable in Bali. But that offered nothing like a guarantee of a deal in 2009. Kyoto took five years to hammer out and that, unlike now, did not involve developing countries signing up to anything.
The Bush administration--as was made clear time and again in Bali--also remains opposed to legally binding emission cuts. Most of the leading candidates in the American presidential election are more progressive on climate change, but the new president will not take office until January 2008.

Cote dÕIvoire is the only country which has signed the interim EPA in an attempt to safeguard its banana exports to the EU.

A diplomat from Namibia lamented, “We succumbed. We signed on the 12th of December. The pressure was too much. The private sector felt that they would be disproportionately affected. In terms of markets, they would be losing access for beef, grapes, fish and fish products.“
“The political and economic strength of the European Commission (EC) is in itself a threat and a pressure in the negotiations,“ he explained on condition of anonymity to Ipsnews.net.
“When negotiating with a stronger partner, you end up only being on the receiving end. Bully tactics are used with the threat ’you either sign or you don’t have the market’,“ he said.
Up to the last moment, Namibia’s government had tried to resist the pressures from both their own private sector and the European Union. Until late last week, trade minister Immanuel Ngatjizeko had categorically stated that the demands the Economic Partnership Agreement (EPA) placed on Namibia were not acceptable.
He insisted that the EPA should be helping with regional integration and not to disintegrate the region.
“We made a lot of mistakes,“ the diplomat told Ipsnews.net. “There was no proper coordination amongst the African, Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) countries. The EC has successfully fragmented the ACP, not only in terms of regions, but also within regions.“
The Southern African Development Community (SADC) consists of 15 countries. “While we used to get EU development aid for the region as a whole, now only seven SADC countries (those party to the SADC EPA) will get development aid that is related to the EPAs. This will have ramifications.“
The intra-SADC free trade area is also supposed to be formalized by 2008. How this will play out, with some countries being signatories to the EPAs while a country such as Angola chose not to sign the EPA, remains to be seen.
The Namibian diplomat was quick to add that whilst the country had signed the interim EPA on December 12, it had done so with explicit reservations on certain clauses. “If these concerns are not satisfactorily addressed in the next phase of negotiations, then we can say that we are not in a position to ratify the final agreement and opt out. But in the meantime, we need to do other things, such as finding alternative markets.“
The problem is that Namibia, Lesotho, Botswana, Swaziland and South Africa have a common customs union--the Southern African Customs Union (SACU), established in 1910. Lesotho, Botswana and Swaziland have signed the SADC EPA which contains clauses that Namibia is not comfortable with.
One of these clauses restricts local content requirements in the manufacturing sector. In order to support local industries, Namibia does not want to abolish any legislation that requires investors to use locally produced inputs. Another clause deals with the freezing of export taxes.
The EC does not want ACP countries to put in place export taxes. Namibia, however, wants the freedom to use export taxes to discourage the export of raw materials and to encourage local industries to add value to their products before export.
The EC has asked SADC countries to provide it with the same level of market access SADC gives to other significant trade partners. SADC is currently negotiating free trade agreements with India and with MERCOSUR, which is the Southern Common Market trade area and includes Brazil, Paraguay, Argentina and Uruguay.
If more favorable terms of market access are provided in these and other future trade agreements, the same level of liberalization will have to be extended to the EU.
The SADC EPA also states that goods entering any one of the SADC EPA signatories should be allowed to move freely to the other signatory countries. However, SADC has yet to formalize its own regional customs union. There are still issues to be sorted out internally.
In contrast to countries which have caved in and signed the interim EPAs, Senegal in West Africa remains steadfastly opposed to the EPAs.
Cote d’Ivoire is the only country which has signed the interim EPA in an attempt to safeguard its banana exports to the EU. The country is the main economic powerhouse within West African Monetary Union (WAMU), accounting for 40 percent of the union’s gross domestic product.
Cote d’Ivoire’s signing of the interim EPA will definitely have an impact on WAMU.

Compared with cars from western auto giants such as Italy, Germany and France or Asia's Japan and South Korea, Chinese cars such as Brilliance have a relatively lower price.

Nowadays it’s not strange if a Chinese car passes by in the streets of the Egyptian capital Cairo, where the automobile market has traditionally been dominated by European countries and Asia’s Japan and South Korea.
As an emerging auto producer in recent years, China has successfully exported cars marked with “Made in China“ to the world market, including the populous Arab country of Egypt, which is one of the leading car consumers in the Middle East and North Africa.
Du Yibo, chief representative of China’s Brilliance Automobile Co. Ltd. in Egypt, told Xinhua.net in a recent interview that nearly all types of vehicles made by Brilliance Auto have been imported into the Egyptian market since the company established its assembly line in cooperation with Bavarian Auto in Egypt in March, 2006.
“Egyptian consumers have gradually accepted Brilliance’s cars as we exerted great efforts on developing the local market,“ said Du.
Focusing on expanding the international market, Brilliance Auto also debuted its Splendor in Egypt in November this year.
Chery Automobile Co. Ltd., another leading car producer and exporter in China, also has its own factory in Egypt with an annual product capability of 25,000 units, which can be increased to 50,000 if necessary.
As the most populous country in the Middle East and North Africa, Egypt has a great potential in the sector of car consumption. The Egyptian economy has witnessed a boost in recent years, which will help lead to further development of the auto market, especially for private cars.
According to statistics, about 20 Chinese auto companies have sold their vehicles in the Egyptian market since 2003 with an annual sales volume of 3,000 to 4,000 units.
Compared with cars from western auto giants such as Italy, Germany and France or Asia’s Japan and South Korea, Chinese cars have a relatively lower price, which is one of the most obvious advantage and is more acceptable for Egyptian consumers, an Egyptian dealer Mohamed El Bably said.
“Of course the Chinese cars have very good quality in addition to lower prices,“ said EL Bably, who is selling Chery’s QQ, a very popular model of the company’s vehicles.
According to Bably, the price for Chery’s QQ is about 50,000 Egyptian pounds (about $9,000), which is attractive for young working men in cities. “My business is good,“ Bably said when asked about the sale of Chery’s QQ.
Egypt, linking the Middle East and Africa, also has its strategic importance due to its unique geographic location on the map of the international auto market.
Du said Chinese car companies can take the advantage of Egypt’s geographic importance to promote business in the region.
“Brilliance Auto is seeking further cooperation with the Egyptian side to meet the increasing need of the market,“ said Du.