The Alternative Trade
Mandate
• Motivation




go on the offensive with a positive agenda
intervene in wider discussions about new economic model/
alternative societies
learn from existing alternatives
unite dispersed trade justice movement
• Almost 50 member organisations/ supporters
• Key idea: “Alternative Trade Mandate” for a
campaign towards the EU elections
But how?
Developing an alternative
• Issue specific consultations on democracy,
agriculture, investment, raw materials &
consumption, human rights & labour standards
• Additional written contributions on financial services,
public procurement
• Then we hired Ronnie...
TO BEGIN AT THE
BEGINNING…
We want EU trade and investment policies that:
•
•
•
•
•
are democratically-controlled
promote a more equitable distribution of the world’s wealth
protect and promote human, social and cultural rights
protect the commons
contribute to environmental protection
A NEW TRADE AND
INVESTMENT MANDATE
MUST…
•
take second place to international treaties on human rights and the environment
•
make global corporations fully accountable
•
allow prioritisation of local and regional trade
•
respect food sovereignty / local and regional food systems
•
favour goods, services, public procurement —> +ve social/environmental
standards
•
promote fair distribution of income within global value chains
•
allow the regulation of international flows of trade, investment, capital for this
THE TROUBLE IS THIS IS
VERY AMBITIOUS
(STRATEGICALLY)
BECAUSE…
• No-one else knows what all this ‘gobbledygook’ means…
• Even if they do, they are struggling to deal with economic crisis at the
family level – does anyone care?
• Neoliberal globalisation is hegemonic (eg austerity outcomes) meaning
heaven and earth will have to be moved…
• It’s very hard to get people — even us! — to agree on alternatives to free
trade…
• The devil is in the detail…(which can get a bit boring for many)
ON THE PLUS SIDE
HOWEVER…
• The current economic crisis is an opportunity that may not be repeated.
• The ‘last chance saloon’?!
ARE YOU READY?!
HERE’S WHAT WE DID SO
FAR!
FIRSTLY WE THOUGHT
ABOUT THE CONTEXT
Trade not intrinsically bad, but…
The world is a mess and the status quo is taking us nowhere:
•Levels of global poverty immoral and unnecessary
•Inequality increasing
•Emerging problems of climate change, soil fertility, freshwater
•A failure of global governance
The EU’s current ‘free trade’ trade and investment policy is a cause
of, rather than a solution to these crises
…ultimately increasing
inequality of
wealth and power
prevents change
Overall, there are:
• NEW CHALLENGES
as well as growing inequality — emerging
economies, powerful transnational companies,
financial crisis, growing resource constraints.
• NEW BATTLELINES:
No longer strictly N v S,
but rich/corporate v poor/labour
• EMERGING ALTERNATIVES
Strong theoretical critiques on the neo liberal
consensus, Progressive governments in south
developing trade and investment policies based on
mutual support and public need, Growth of direct
‘Fair Trade’ alliances
THEN WE THOUGHT
ABOUT THAT LIST OF
STRATEGIC PROBLEMS
Our solutions are:
1. Try to construct a common agenda from the outcomes of the working groups
(consistency —> proposals)
1. Use simplest language possible (ie no gobbledygook)
2. Relate everything back to experience of EU individuals re experiences and
potential benefits
1. Move heaven and earth (obviously)
2. Get others to move heaven and earth too (strategy)
Right now we are still at (1) and (2) – these need to be agreed before moving on
(rights section still missing)
THEN WE THOUGHT
ABOUT THE STRUCTURE
The structure needs to work for ‘normal’ people
We think people want:
• AS INDIVIDUALS - Decent jobs, secure livelihoods and food
(= Investment, financial sector, food, services, public procurement)
• AS COMMUNITIES - Healthy environment, comfortable happy
communities
• (= Agriculture + env, resource constraints, climate change)
• AS SOCIETIES – For themselves and others to be treated fairly and
heard
(= Labour rights + human rights)
WE THOUGHT
ABOUT TOP LINE
Not advocating complete withdrawal from global economy, some kinds of
agreements on trade and investment still necessary.
BUT… deals that are negotiated in a radically different way, based on
radically different assumptions, eg
•
•
•
•
•
Do not compromise the ability of governments to manage their own economies
– don’t reduce ‘policy space’
Ensure those affected are able to understand and to influence agreements
Greater levels of transparency
Look for and build on successful examples of new approaches where they exist
Be prepared to test new approaches
So, here we go…
INVESTING IN A
BETTER FUTURE
The EU must stop promoting investment
as a ‘cure all’ and coercing countries into
Signing BITS.
It should terminate invalid investment
Treaties that conflict with legal obligations
to promote rights and sustainable
development.
INSTEAD, the EU should:
• introduce ‘investment cooperation agreements’ with trial partners
• allow conditions for incoming investors, harness potential benefits
• monitor and enforce good behaviour by investors, nationally (home
and host countries) and internationally
• cancel agreements if standards are not maintained by investors
• allow states to stop capital flight
• reverse status quo, redress power balance: facilitate governments
taking TNCs to court
(INVESTMENT - THE SMALL PRINT)
ie you won’t be tested on this bit!...
•
Ban investments without full impact assessments, which must be made public
•
Ensure clearly defined systems to include informed local communities in decision-making
•
Reform/replace ICSID: establish an international court for crimes committed by transnational
companies
•
Make home country governments legally accountable for actions of companies HQ’d in their
country
•
Require Investors to abide by national laws and meet all international human rights and
environmental laws
•
Apply strong sanctions eg losing access to export credit mechanisms through to jailing of directors
•
Require investors to take out insurance to cover full costs of any linked liability
•
All investments should be subject to full financial transparency, including country by country
reporting on taxation
A BANKING
REVOLUTION
There needs to be a banking revolution, putting finance and investment at
the service of society, in the EU and elsewhere:
• Banks and financial services are potentially valuable instruments for
creating social goods and enhancing the environment
• The EU needs to fundamentally reform its financial sector, not export it
• Developing country governments must retain full control over their own
economies including financial sector
• Financial stability must be prioritised over profitability in all government
policies
(A BANKING REVOLUTION - THE SMALL
PRINT / IDEAS)
•
EU to lead on creating a new International Forum on
Financial Services (IFFS), to control and direct financial
services providers at the global level
•
IFFS rule-making must be the responsibility of financial
regulators and supervisors, not trade and investment
negotiators
•
The IFFS should establish a permanent International
Tribunal on Financial Services (ITFS), to adjudicate in
cases of malpractice
•
Robin Hood tax to curb excessive speculation (already
underway)
CULTIVATING A NEW
APPROACH TO FOOD
We need to cultivate a new approach to food, producing good food
for all:
• Food production should be founded on the concept of ‘food
sovereignty’. This means that people have the right to define and
control their own local food systems
• Small farmers should be respected and properly rewarded, with
fair and stable prices guaranteed
• Farming should be a self-sustaining process that protects
biodiversity, enhances the fertility of soils, and helps prevent
climate change
(CULTIVATING A NEW APPROACH TO FOOD
- THE SMALL PRINT / IDEAS)
•
The EU should introduce a long term goal of only importing products we cannot grow or rear in
Europe
•
The EU needs to become self-sufficient in products that can replace imports of animal feeds and
the raw materials used to make biofuels, as quickly as possible.
•
Introduce supply management measures to (1) minimise food shortages (reducing the need for
imports) and (2) prevent food surpluses (which will keep farm gate prices up and reduce dumping
on foreign markets)
•
Introduce measures (eg taxation) to address over-consumption and food waste in the EU
•
The current EU bio-fuels directive should be replaced with other measures to reduce demand for
fossil fuels
•
EU stored food reserves should be built up and managed, to help reduce food price volatility
•
The EU should promote and facilitate the use of storage measures in other countries
(there’s more on food than anything
else…)
•
Tough regulation (transparency and limits) is need to curb food price speculation
•
Focus development aid and technical support to promote South-South and local/regional trade,
especially in countries that have become dependent upon exporting agricultural products to the EU
•
Abolish EU tariffs on imports of processed products, including foods, to encourage the
development of local food processing in exporting countries
•
Help exporting countries to implement high environmental and social standards for exports that
cannot be produced in the EU
•
Investment in food and farmland in non-EU countries to be brought under new Investment
Cooperation agreements
•
Strict rules based on food security and food sovereignty to define ‘unjustified expropriation’
•
IPR rules to be reviewed; patents on life banned; and current plans on seed marketing (which will
discriminate against new seed varieties developed by farmers and peasants in response to climate
change) to be dropped
RECOGNISING THE VALUE OF
SERVICES AND PUBLIC
PROCUREMENT
• Reverse EU’s focus on privatisation of EU and non-EU public
services
• Public services ensure everyone has access to basic services for a
dignified life, including education, health, clean water and
sanitation, caring services, and local amenities.
• All governments must be able to use public services and public
procurement as tools to promote decent work, healthy local and
low carbon economies, and a clean environment
• The EU’s internal public procurement directives should support
local authority decisions about the best use of public spending
(SERVICES AND PUBLIC PROCUREMENT THE SMALL PRINT / IDEAS)
•
Public services in the EU should be re-municipalised
•
The EU should offer public procurement negotiations on a voluntary basis and
offering at least the same safeguards that are granted to all developing countries
(not only Least Developed Countries) in the WTO’s Government Procurement
Agreement
•
More inputs on specifics would be good!
AGRICULTURE AND THE
ENVIRONMENT: PLANTING
THE SEEDS OF CHANGE
• Ideal is to internalise environmental costs, but difficult in practice. Instead:
• Continuous improvement in agriculture-related regulations in EU needed
• Provide financial support for the additional costs of EU farmers for
environmentally-friendly production methods or high production costs
• Short-term: promote same standards amongst trading partners through
border tax adjustments and collaborative bilateral processes like FLEGT
(illegal timber), ring fence finance – SEE FLEGT SLIDE
• Longer-term: Lead on development of an intergovernmental forum on
sustainable food production standards
RESPECT RESOURCE
CONSTRAINTS
EU must set clear targets to reduce its levels of resource consumption, using
trade and investment policy as a tool towards this.
• Stop pushing for ban on export restrictions by other countries
• EU to drop plans for transitioning to ‘bio-economy’ based on biomass
• Remove tariff escalation on processed goods, to support processing in
exporting countries and S-S trade.
• Discriminate in favour of goods produced under exemplary conditions
• Select a combination of FLEGT (carrot) and BTA/distance tax (stick), with
any finance being ring-fenced and channelled back.
(more on resources…)
• Investors in raw materials to be controlled and made accountable
• Strengthen use of licenses for exploration and exploitation, disclosure of
contracts & payments made by companies, routine use of independent
environmental impact assessments
• Shared allocation of revenues
• Permanent restrictions/bans on certain raw materials, eg tar sands
• Regulate within the EU to prevent excessive speculation on commodity
markets
• Regulate to control the power and size of transnationals operating in the
raw materials sector through anti-trust laws
THE CLIMATE CHANGE
IMPERATIVE
As well as UNFCCC, the EU should act unilaterally to:
•
Double EU goal to mandatory 40% reduction in CO2 emissions by 2020 (re 1990 levels)
•
Ramp up investment in low carbon technologies (20% by 2020 – 1m new jobs +
€200/yr)
•
(Possibly) equalise using ‘border tax adjustments’ (BTAs) on high carbon imports and
ring-fencing funding — although carbon debt argument.
•
Use FLEGT approach as a way of paying carbon debt (financial and technical support
to partners)
•
Support and introduce new intellectual property rules that foster transfer of lowcarbon technologies to developing countries, and the development of climate-friendly
crops by small farmers
THE ‘FLEGT’ APPROACH –
why is it important?
FLEGT stands for Forest Law Enforcement, Governance and
trade — bilateral ‘Voluntary Partnership Agreements’ to stop
illegal trade in timber
Could offer a new approach to improving social and
environmental standards around the world, in a pragmatic and
step-by-step fashion, using trade policy in a positive way.
FLEGT approach provides a way to increase standards in
other countries, meaning you can provide your own
standards without disadvantage.
THE ‘FLEGT’ APPROACH –
why is it important?
FLEGT approach solves problems
PROBLEM 1:
Internalise environmental costs (standard economic answer to how to proceed).
If it’s a free market and if you increase your own standards your competitors will
sell their goods cheaper and you’ll go bust. It’s also very hard to calculate those
costs, and implement.
PROBLEM 2:
Get together with other countries and agree to improve standards by
internalising costs in all countries at the same time.
Unlikely to work, takes forever. Still hard to calculate costs.
THE ‘FLEGT’ APPROACH –
why is it important?
PROBLEM 3:
Apply border tax adjustments. Hugely controversial, still hard to calculate.
But could ring-fence and return finance to improve standards.
FLEGT- THE ALTERNATIVE APPROACH
Collaborative, bilateral country-by-country agreements.
Critically, based on stake-holder consultations with affected communities.
Incentive is no BTAs on timber exports.
These WORK.
Claiming democratic control
over trade & investment
policy making
Aim is to ensure that political decisions are…
•
made by people themselves, or through their elected representatives
•
selected from a range of genuine policy alternatives
•
based on transparent procedures
•
not confined to choices that are based on the interests of elites, and
•
reversible and open to challenge by people through, for example, referenda.
Next steps…
• Integrate the outputs from this meeting into a revised
draft document
• Take on-line for a public consultation based on key
questions
• Final draft developed
• Final version and summary document approved and
disseminated by September/Oct