20 years after Rio – Civil society participation in international negotiations

Even though Non-governmental organizations (NGO) are allowed to participate in international environmental conferences there is still a huge gap between the number of participants from the global North and the global South. This is not due to the lack of organizations in those countries it is more about the fact that these organizations often do not have the financial means to take part in international negotiations – especially when they take place in Europe or the United States. In many countries, funding and public support for NGOs is not successfully developed and many organizations have to struggle for their existence and also for the possibility to accomplish their projects.

While there are enough European NGOs which raise their voice for developing countries I would argue that this kind of support cannot make up for their absence. It is important to strengthen civil society organizations in developing countries and to help them participate in international summits, but also to help them being active in their own country. The change of the venues of international summits is one important step to help NGOs participate. The attention of national and international media can help to increase awareness about the policy area in the host country. Besides, the presence of international partners, NGOs and other organizations can boost cooperation opportunities. But, in the long run, it is important to include NGOs from all over the world fundamentally.

I have just published an article about this topic focusing on international climate negotiations. I would appreciate to receive comments. You can find it here:
http://www.inwent.org/ez/articles/197598/index.en.shtml

Don’t fall into the trap of „Glamour Aid”

Following the media reports on the current MDG+10 summit of the United Nations in New York is quite interesting: How is it possible to explain such complex socio-political and economic processes to the public? Which examples are selected for showing failure and success? And which experts are allowed to explain who this plight can be solved? And, yes, it is not surprising that Bob Geldof is present at the summit and meets all the high level politicians (media report 22.9.2010 at German Tagesthemen).

Honestly, I can’t stand Bob Geldof and other celebrities like Bono being engaged on such a high political level as I see two fundamental problems: glamour aid is both paternalistic with regards to the poor people in the world and it is anti-democratic with regards to global governance. To be clear: I find it important that many people engage in raising awareness on the MDGs in the public, but I find it problematic if celebrities act like politicians and claim to be speaker of the poor people in the political arena. Let me quickly explain my two points:

With regards to the paternalistic behaviour by celebrities I would like to refer to Dambisa Moyo who illustrated this point quite good – though I do not support Moyo’s simplistic theses on “Dead Aid”, but on this point she is right:

“There are African policymakers who are charged with the responsibility of creating policy, and implementing policy. That's their job. Long, long lines of people have stood in the sun to vote for a president who is effectively impotent because of donors or because glamour aid has decided to speak on behalf of a continent. How would British people feel if tomorrow Michael Jackson started telling them how they should get out of the housing crisis? Or if Amy Winehouse started to give the US government advice about the credit crunch? And was listened to? I think they would be perturbed, and worried. I mean, they've completely disenfranchised the very people we've actually elected!" (highlights by me, Interview with The Guardian, 19.2.2009)

So let me explain my second criticism: glamour aid is anti-democratic. In politics, it is all about legitimacy. So what is the legitimacy for celebrities to be invited in the political arena? Do I have to produce at least five number one hits in the charts that I’m invited to the plenum of the United Nations? What kind of democratic understanding is it? No democratic understanding at all. So what’s the reason for letting celebrities speak to high level politicians? Both want to create a win-win-situation: Politicians gain public support for being friends with celebrities and celebrities gaining attention for seeming to do something good to achieve the MDGs. The problem, however, is that celebrities are not being acknowledged for telling something clever or something that is new, it is just because they are celebrities. Wonderful democracy.

So please, politicians and the public, do not fall into the trap of glamour aid. It is very paternalistic and it harms the democratic understanding – and that’s not how development politics should be in the future!

Human Rights in Mexico

In Mexico, the fight for Human Rights is very closely connected to the Zapatista movement and its fight for the rights of indigenous people. But unfortunately there are other human rights violations. Just to name a few: There are cases of torture in prisons, the presumption of innocence does not hold and so-called defenders of natural resources - persons that fight for example against illegal logging - are often threatened, violated or even killed.
The notorious "war on drugs" brings further dangers of human rights violations. In order to combat the drug cartels, the state responded with counter violence and increased massively the police and military forces in the country - this entails a militarization of the society. The killings and violence in the country augmented dramatically after this decision. There is a high degree of impunity amongst the military personal as they are held responsible only to a special military court. Since 2006 - the beginning of the "war on drugs" - the number of appeals exploded. Protection of civilians is not anchored in the Mexican law. Finally, the cartels are said to be involved in the military.
More information about human rights in Mexico: http://centroprodh.org.mx/centroprodh/

It is not only about counterfeiting sunglasses...

The EU is negotiating with the USA, Canada and a few others a new trade agreement that aims at enforcing intellectual property rights – the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement or short: ACTA.

Several aspects of this agreement are seen as problematic: Amongst others, ACTA circumvents multilateralism and established multilateral fora and Individual internet users may be criminalized using free software.

Moreover, ACTA will have severe implications for developing countries. First of all, it is problematic for developing countries that they do not take part at the negotiations but are affected by the results. Although the EU Commission states that ACTA will not have any negative effect on the access to medicine, several experts think that exactly this will happen. Counterfeiting is not only limited to fake products like sneakers but also to patents, trademarks and thus medicine. With ACTA, the current trend of anchoring stricter rules in ongoing trade negotiations than in TRIPS will be strengthened and it will be more difficult for developing countries to have access to affordable medicine. The enforcement of intellectual property rights is not cheap and there is the danger that money will be shifted for example from the health sector to the implementation of ACTA in developing countries. The transfer from generic medicine produced e.g. in India heading for African countries through the EU is also jeopardized.

See also petition by professors, MEPs and others.

EU-India Free Trade Agreement threatens access to medicine

Since 2007 the EU is negotiating a Free Trade Agreement (FTA) with India. This is part of a trade web the EU is spinning all over the world since the Doha talks in the framework of WTO do not advance. This evolution is - without looking at the substance - already questionable as multilateralism is weakened and the huge EU trade block usually faces less strong developing countries during the negotiations.

Critics fear the negative impact on the liberalization of the financial and agricultural sectors.

Of special concern is however the danger that the FTA might hinder the access to medicine for developing countries. India is the “pharmacy” of the world producing 80% of the generic medicine for AIDS/HIV. This medicine is crucial for the treatment of poorer people. The EU now wants to put high enforcement standards on intellectual property rights into the agreement. The Commission wants to prolong the duration of patents and pushes for data exclusivity which would make India to undertake clinical studies although existent again on its own.

And the money escapes....

Taxation is a rather boring topic at the first glance. Its importance for developing countries was neglected for a long time, but is slowly entering the political agenda.
There are two basic problems at the moment. One, money simply escapes from developing countries when it should not. Illegal capital outflows are huge in many states. That has several reasons. Transnational Corporations often do creative accounting; they produce in developing countries but do not pay taxes there because of their integrated business structure, based in many countries. Quite often, the rich elite of a country is not taxed either and directs all its money into one of the various tax havens.
Secondly, developing countries also suffer from inadequate revenues, because they have a large share of shadow economy. Also, the international tax race leads developing countries to lower its rates. Tax revenues from international trade are decreasing due to the financial crisis but also due to the WTO liberalization policies. A further reason is that the tax administration is rather weak and political systems often lack legitimacy. Public services are rather poor that is why people simply avoid to pay taxes. There is often an extremely narrow tax basis in developing countries.

All this is very bad for developing countries. First, they lack money to finance public services, run the state etc. Second, taxation contributes to enhancing democracy and accountability of the state. Non-tax revenues make the regimes more free about what to do with the money, and rentier states tend to have a bad development record.

That is why tax havens have to be closed and countries should focus on strengthening their taxation administration, reduce or eliminate tax exemptions and mobilize the citizens by taxing them.

Post-Copenhagen - A mixture of strategies

Let us be honest: The conference in Copenhagen was a failure and a huge disappointment. From a political perspective we didn’t get an agreement – it is even called a non-agreement – and the next steps will probably be difficult. Questions arise: How long will it take to find a global solution? Will we even get a global agreement? Is the framework of the United Nations not the right place to decide about these questions as states only pursue their own interests? Some scientists even ask a dangerous question: Is democracy not the right system for difficult questions? Last Saturday I discussed all these questions with Individual Supporters of the European Green Party in Brussels and I would like to share my main arguments. Of course, it took some time to get over Copenhagen, but I think that we should not stop fighting for a global agreement. But it would probably be better to focus on different strategies and on different levels also.

The UN perspective
The most optimistic sentence I’ve heard was “Better a non-agreement than a bad agreement.” And this is not wrong. Some steps have been taken in Copenhagen and even though China and the US were probably the main draggers of the agreement, they are still on board and they probably will be in 2010. We should go on with this strategy as the international area is the only way to really find an adequate solution to our global problem.

Coalition of the willing
Not the best term thinking about Bush and the war on terrorism, but a good term to describe the idea: If not every state is willing to sign a global contract the pushers for a global agreement should unite to agree at least on a smaller agreement. Even the Kyoto protocol was not signed by the whole international community. Some of you might ask: How much impact can a global agreement have without the United States or China? I would say: It can have an impact as a good cooperation between willing states in the climate and energy sector will also force the draggers to do it, especially regarding technical progress and cooperation. Probably some of the progressive take-off countries would support such an agreement.

Other levels – The European and also the national level
There is also the possibility to intensify bilateral and multilateral cooperation, e.g. in the framework of development assistance. The green party in Germany has already claimed that Germany should increase its assistance for adaptation and technology transfer in developing countries starting in 2010 with around 7 billion Euros per year, going on with 10 billion dollar per year between 2013 and 2020. If the German government would follow this application this could set a good example for other European countries. But: I am very skeptical whether the conservative-liberal coalition is going to do that.

On the other hand the conference in Copenhagen has also shown that the climate community is supported by a strong civil society. Thus I would suggest intensifying the dialogue with NGOs, consumers and other actors of civil society to increase pressure on countries and also on companies. Naming shaming strategies, massive protests and other measures should also be supported by politicians from green or green-thinking parties. In Brussels we have already decided to intensify the cooperation between green parties in Europe, exchanging knowledge, programs and strategies. There is still enough hope and power. Rome wasn’t built on a day, also.