Wednesday, February 27, 2013

THE SUSTAINABILITY OF FREE TRADE

I am against the free trade for many the reasons some of which are perhaps not so obvious in everyday life but in the end will lead to what can be referred to as a ‘tragedy of the commons’ affecting the global community. From 1995 WTO has managed and supervised liberalization of international trade by working to reduce trade barriers. It provides the framework and the platform for member countries to negotiate and formalize trade agreements. It enforces compliance and regulates international trade between participating members. Under WTO the belonging 155 member countries have agreed to reduce and eliminate controls of products that are imported or exported by their countries. Members are obligated to sign and ratify all of WTO agreements. Removal of trade barriers and trade competition have led to environmental degradation caused by over exploitation and abuse of earth resources because while some WTO member nations are bound to reduce environmental degradation as signatories of i.e. The Kyoto agreement to reduce CO2 emissions, other WTO members are non-signatories of the Kyoto. One can use the current examples of China VS European Union members (EU). Under the Kyoto protocol the EU has been working to reduce CO2 emissions which impacts revenue and profit of the industries in the sense that companies have to face abatement costs during the time of the economic crisis. China on the otherhand, has had the advantage of being the non signatory of the Kyoto protocol and of being a member of WTO by ensuring exponential growth at the expense to the environment. Without the restrictions of trade, blatant exploitation of the environment will lead to major disasters that will pale in comparison to the damage done on the Ozone layer by the previous CFC productions. The externalization of costs to the environment and communities will exacerbate climate change as predicted by climate change scientific models (temperature rise of between 1.4 °C and 5.8 °C ) with the related impacts. If free trade is to be made sustainable there are some important steps that have to be done and that includes; 1. Centralizing Environmental governance policies i.e. The Basel convention on the Control of Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes and their Disposal, The convention on Biological Diversity, The convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES) , The convention on Migratory Species (CMS) , The UN convention to combat desertification (UNCCD) , The UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) ,The Kyoto Protocol to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, The Vienna Convention to Protect the Ozone Layer and The Montreal Protocol of the Vienna Convention in order to avoid policies contradictions. 2. Building an ultimate global partnership for sustainable development by merging WTO trade policies with environmental governance policies in order to remove loop holes e.g. for WTO members who are non-signatories of the environmental policies. 3. Creating categories of WTO free trade products and thereafter indicating specific environmental policies that should apply for each category. 4. Embracing CSR matrix principles – People, Planet, Profit within WTO free trade rules. 5. Making side payments to WTO developing nations to meet the environmental standards required /or costs incurred while meeting the standards. 6. Agriculture is the backbone of the economy therefore agricultural subsidies to be given only on WTO level for the purpose of subsidizing farmers to meet the criteria for organic farming and other required environmental standards so as to promote sustainability for farmers as well as for the agricultural products ,instead of the current situation whereby subsidies are given in consideration of national interest. Immediate positive impacts will be reflected in public health and the environment. 7. Sponsoring institutional capacity building where knowledge is lacking. i.e. Sustainable farming, technology etc.

Thursday, February 21, 2013

POST 2015 - A STEP TOWARDS MITIGATION OF INEQUALITIES

POST 2015 - A STEP TOWARDS MITIGATION OF INEQUALITIES Indeed I am worried about the post 2015 agenda regarding all subjects. This is mostly because it is not possible to have a standardized solution that can solve all problems. Therefore the main place to start I suppose is to understand the roots of inequality before skipping to the stage of tackling inequality. In my opinion, inequalities result from non-sustainable policies that promote unequal division of goods and services. Inequality dis-empowers nations and individuals. When the situation continues for a long period it creates a feeling of helplessness and frustration. The results have many faces; economic depression, unrest, corruption, contests, protests, civil wars, migration, environmental degradation as well as health impacts. Neo-Liberalism – the main root for inequality: Neo- liberalism refers to a set of global economic policies. It is a new form of liberalism that has been revived by corporate elite as a result of the ongoing 25 years of what is framed as ‘the capitalist crisis’. Neo- liberalism advocates the following main points: Deregulation and freedom of markets: Cutting all ties from the government starting by reducing government regulation of everything that hinders profit making e.g. Environmental protection. Reducing public expenditure for social services: Cutting back government support of social services such as health care, education, child support, rent subsidy, social welfare, sanitation and other safety nets for the poor and blaming them if they fail to take ‘individual responsibility’ and find solutions for their problems. Privatization of formerly public services: Promoting privatization and competition as a way to foster economic development which is hereafter defined as maximization of profit. What neo-liberalism offers is to turn the world into a global shopping mall. Globalization of the capitalist economy have helped to spread neo-liberalism ideas across international borders. Neo-liberal policies are destroying safety nets for the suffering poor majority, compounding poverty , inequality and ex-acerbating environmental degradation. (E.Martinez , A.Garcia and the National Network for Immigrant and Refugee Rights,2012). Case study: New-Delhi India; Inequalities between the high caste (Brahmin) and the low castes (Shudras, Harijans) results in the lower caste being forced to live in informal settlements. These settlements are marginalized and out of the formal networks which usually provide public services e.g. clean drinking water, sanitation and other. The low castes are forced into these conditions due to poverty compounded by lack of available opportunities to their caste. Governments refuse to provide formal public services to informal services as this will be condoning illegal temporary settlements. Lack of proper sanitation and clean drinking water results into environmental pollution and the related health problems. (Aradau Brown & Budds, 2009) Case Study: Tanzania Education system Inequalities between the high income earners and the majority of the citizens has caused the disintegration of the education system. Private schools which cost a school fee of more 500 EUR per semester can afford to recruit the best teachers for the privileged students. Students from these schools therefore acquire the best education. Public schools with basic salary of 15 to 20 EUR per month for a teacher remain with students from the majority of the low income earners. Schools lack the basic facilities such as libraries, books, school desks, electricity. Both teachers and students are demotivated and frustrated. The form 4 secondary school final exams results of 2012 have recently come out showing 60% of the students who completed their studies failed completely. The percentage refers to the whole country. This is the future generation, the future of the country. (http://www.thecitizen.co.tz/component/content/article/37-tanzania-top-news-story/28968-blame-game-as-form-4-results-sink-in.html). Even with the national outcry there is no possibility for the government to repair the damage that is already done, on it’s own. Case Study: India coffee farming units: All WTO members have to agree to the same rules of free trade and fair competition. However, some countries are less developed than others therefore abiding to WTO is an economic disadvantage to them. Sometimes this situation indirectly contributes to environmental degradation. I.e. In 1995 the committee on trade and environment (CTE) was established by WTO general council. CTE published the first report that underlines the rights of member country governments e.g. India, to formulate national environmental standards according to their development needs and priorities. With trade liberalization, the costs and responsibilities for export has fallen in the hands of coffee-farming units and private traders. In India, coffee-farming units are mainly concentrated in the South provinces of Karnataka, Tamil Nadu and Kerala, which also happen to be biodiversity rich areas. Some farming units exists on the fringes of the forests or even within the forests and thus contribute to forests fragmentation. Nearly 75% of India’s coffee is exported to the west. Because of this economic dependence on international markets, coffee-farming units have to comply with quality and products safety standards i.e. the WTO environmental clause for sanitary and phytosanitary measure (SPS) by ensuring less use of pesticides, minimization of the sprayed chemicals, and maintenance of appropriate environmental conditions in the coffee farm dictated by importing countries e.g. in Europe, Far East and North America, which are sensitive to sanitary and phytosanitary regulations and norms. In addition, India coffee farmers are forced to comply with water pollution laws as expected by the national government and sometimes compliance involves high capital investment. E.g. In south India, coffee- farming units had to install a water treatment system. In 1995-96 failure to comply with the pollution control law led to confiscation of coffee pulping machines from farmers in the district of Chikmagalur in Karnataka. At the same time SPS related market barriers threatens India coffee export trade as it increases the costs of production without the corresponding revenue realization. Because India coffee farmers suffer high incremental costs - complying to both the WTO SPS clauses ,the national water pollution law , as well as facing severe pressures to meet loan re-payment schedules- they are forced to neutralize their losses by practicing unsustainable exploitation of less regulated resources e.g. Biodiversity. (Damodaran.A ,2002). This case study indicates that although WTO neo-liberal policies have expanded to include environmental governance clauses, sometimes impacts on environments may occur due to social economic inequalities as well as different values and understandings. Case Study: International trade of hazardous waste: Hazardous waste is a direct result of the industrialization of the western countries as well as some middle east countries. It includes waste liquids, solids or gases that are harmful to the environment and human health. It also includes post-consumer goods e.g. packaging and products that are discarded after use i.e. e-waste which is electronic scrap that contains toxic chemicals and heavy metals. By 2000 it was estimated that industrialised countries produce over 300 million tonnes of hazardous waste per year. Hazardous waste disposal can occur either by dumping on landfills sites, by transfer from land to sea, by dumping at sea, and by transboundary shipment for dumping on land in another country(Blowers,1996). The greatest international concern in the recent decades has been the transfer of hazardous waste between countries because hazardous waste pollutes soils, water courses, air, food chains. The creation of international environmental agreements is one part of a wider range of responses to collective environmental problems at the international level. Since the 2nd world war there has been an increasing number of treaties between states designed for the governance of collective environmental problems. Some agreements are between two states (bilateral) and some between 3 or more states (multilateral). The treaties form the foundation of the international responses to environmental problems such as the problem of endangered species and disposal of hazardous waste. International trade of hazardous waste is one part of the broader concern with the environmental impacts of waste. The root cause and even the foundation for this trade is social economic inequalities. 1970-1980s tougher waste disposal domestic laws within industrialized countries stimulated an increase of international waste trade to developing countries with ‘lax’ environmental regulations. During this time many developing countries were suffering from low economic growth, a shortage of foreign exchange earnings and the consequences of debt repayment to i.e. IMF and The World Bank. The combination of these factors was a great incentive for developing countries to participate as hazardous waste importers, by allowing dumping in their countries. This was a way for developing countries to earn a substantial foreign income although at the same time costs were externalized to the environment and local communities. ( Aradau Brown & Budds) Through analytical lenses – National interest: The main obstacle to achieving collective action in reducing poverty and inequality is national interests. Industrial countries have taken advantage of the weaknesses of the developing countries for centuries. This is time for evolutionary ideas whereby national interest should not play the primary role in mitigating the impacts of inequality. Inequality and eradication of poverty should be tackled as a collective action problem. The bones, blood and muscle of neo-liberalism are the World Trade Organization (WTO), the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund (IMF) also known as Bretton Woods institutions. By examining revising the policies within these institutions it may be possible to reduce inequality and to work on moving forward in a sustainable way - meaning, prioritising global welfare over national interest.