Keswick and District Fairtrade: Trade Justice

A sub-group of the Keswick and District Fair Trade Campaign meets once a month in order to lobby the Government and the European Union on questions of Trade Justice. Fairtrade brings tangible and invaluable benefits to producers all over the South.  However, only a small percentage of the total number of farmers, craftspeople and workers who are dependent on trade receive those benefits because the Fairtrade market, although growing, is small. Most producers operate within a system of trade which is far from fair in that they cannot make a decent living from the price they obtain for their products. In theory, international trade is now regulated by the World Trade Organisation (WTO) which was set up in 1995.  It now has 151 members, each with one vote, and its stated aim is the removal of barriers to trade in the hope that this is the best way to share wealth worldwide.  It has a legal status similar to that of the United Nations in that its rules can be made legally binding on states: a Disputes Settlement Body has the power to impose fines and sanctions.  This may sound fine in theory – and so it would be if all those 151 countries were equal in power and wealth, but of course they are not.   In practice, the more powerful nations use the WTO to reduce barriers to exporting their goods to the less powerful ones, while maintaining their own import barriers. The Trade Justice Movement seeks to bring pressure to bear on governments within the WTO to regulate trade in such a way as to benefit people throughout the world, and to protect the environment.  Oxfam’s research team makes available information about trade justice: www.maketradefair.com - link to ‘Research’. You can also take part in campaigns through this website. Christian Aid also has a useful website: www.pressureworks.org.uk  The WTO website provides extensive information about the organisation and about what is currently happening. Current issues At the WTO, negotiations known as the Doha Round have been taking place for more than six years.  In the Declaration made at the start of this Round in November, the emphasis was placed on the needs of developing countries: “a majority of WTO members are developing countries.  We seek to place their needs and interests at the heart of the Work Programme adopted in this Declaration.”  It has proved extremely difficult to come to an agreement which achieved this aim.  Despite the efforts of the Chairmen of the two big committees on agriculture and ‘non-agricultural market access’ (NAMA) there has been little willingness to compromise on the part of the developed world.  The developing countries have formed alliances (most conspicuously a group known as the G33) and dug in their heels, pointing out that the EU and the US are not prepared to stop  subsidising agricultural goods, but are insisting on the developing countries lowering their tariffs on industrial imports. The other topic of acute concern to Trade Justice campaigners has been the Economic Partnership Agreements, or EPAs, between the EU and the group of 79 African, Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) countries.  The need for such agreements arose from the challenge made in the WTO to long established agreements between the EU and the ACP which has offered a degree of protection for the exports – such as bananas and sugar – from the ACP countries, most of which were former European colonies.  In December 2007 35  ACP countries bilaterally or sub-regionally signed agreements, although only a group of Caribbean countries (CARIFORUM) signed a full agreement.  The agreements require trade liberalisation – the removal of tariffs -  in return for continued entry for ACP goods into EU markets.  There has been much criticism of the way these agreements have been pushed through under threat of the total removal of protection and diminishing levels of aid.  This approach has resulted in rushed deals, removing the opportunity for appropriate expert or public scrutiny as well as debate of the content either in ACP countries or Europe. The deals agreed could pose a major threat to development in the countries concerned.  Many ACP governments were put in the impossible position of having to choose between supporting existing livelihoods and industries now or retaining the ability  to support industries that may emerge in future – a policy choice that Europe itself made during its development.  Although the EU’s stated objective was that EPAs would lead to increased regional integration in ACP countries, the fact that the agreements have been made with individual governments or handfuls of countries can only weaken existing indigenous regional integration processes. Unease with the composition of the EPAs has been expressed by African countries.  A meeting took place at Addis Ababa on April 3 2008 of trade ministers from members of the African Union (AU).  They drew up a declaration which expressed their concerns about the EPAs which were signed in December 2007, "in order to avoid trade disruption".  They called upon the AU to draw up a template to serve as a guide so that negotiators could harmonise full EPAs in order to safeguard regional integration. They called for a recognition that there are contentious issues in the current EPAs and that these need to be renegotiated. They called on the European Union(EU) to respect the commitment  that “no ACP country should be made worse off” by the  new agreements, and to provide adequate resources to meet adjustment costs.  Thy called upon both AU and EU negotiators to establish effective monitoring and evaluation of the implementation of EPAs. In April Oxfam published a very detailed analysis of the one full and the interim EPAs which have been initialled: Partnership or Power Play? How Europe should bring development into its trade deals with African, Caribbean, and Pacific countries.  In the introduction, the report points out that “A true partnership in trade could radically transform the lives of one-third of all people living in poverty, providing farmers and small businesses with sustainable incomes and workers with decent jobs.”  Oxfam’s view is that Europe is choosing power politics over partnership.  The report concludes that: "the deals currently on the table will strip ACP countries of important policy tools they need in order to develop. They will fracture regional integration, exacerbate poverty and make it harder for countries to break away from commodity dependence.” Oxfam point to the resistance which many ACP countries are demonstrating to signing unfair agreements in haste, and calls on Europe “to rethink, and agree to change course". Ultimately, the report concludes, “it is in its own interests to do so.” The Trade Justice Movement is calling for a revision of the existing agreements, in particular to avoid damaging regional integration, and for an effective review and monitoring process.  For those countries which have not yet signed an agreement, a more development friendly approach must be taken by the EU.  South Africa refused to sign an agreement because of the EU's "unreasonable" demands about inclusion of issues such as the obligation to negotiate the liberalisation of trade in services.  South Africa’s deputy trade minister has declared that  "if not amended, the economic partnership agreements will become another obstacle which developing countries will have to overcome on their path towards development." 27.5.08

Home