Tag Archives: Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership

The TTIP Talks – What’s OUR stake?

 

The first essential component of social justice is adequate food for all mankind. Food is the moral right of all who are born into this world.” Norman Borlaug

World Food Day 2013 was yesterday, October 16.  Sponsored by the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) of the United Nations the day sheds light on the global status and issues related
to hunger. The World Food Day website (http://www.worldfooddayusa.org) serves as an excellent resource on the facts – statistics, organizations involved in reducing world hunger, events, background materials readily accessible to those who want to know more or to teach others. Focus of the day is on progress towards meeting the Millennium Development Goals to which 189 nations around the world agreed after the 2000 Millennium Summit. First among the eight agreed-upon goals was to “eradicate extreme poverty and hunger.”(http://www.undp.org/content/undp/en/home/mdgoverview/)

There is good and bad news. This month the annual State of Food Security in the World was issued by the International Fund for Agricultural Development, the Food and Agriculture Organization and the World Food Programme. The report determined that “some 842 million people, or roughly one in eight, suffered from chronic hunger in 2011-2013. Chronic hunger is defined to mean that these 842 million people are “not getting enough food to lead active and healthy lives.”

Most of those hungry people live in developing regions (Southern Asia (295 million), sub-Saharan
Africa (223 million) and Eastern Asia (267 million). At the same time, 15.7 % live in developing nations, including the U.S, including Minnesota, including northern Dakota County.  Each day I see those people arrive to obtain their quota from the food shelf at the nonprofit where I volunteer.

Efforts to alleviate world hunger do seem to be having an effect. As of this month 62 countries have reached the MDG target of reducing the proportion of people suffering from hunger by 2015. An additional six countries are on track to meet the 2015 goal. There are signs of collaboration including the Food Assistance Convention (http://www.foodassistanceconvention.org/en/press/press.aspx) which commits signatories to a more efficient and effective response to food and nutrition insecurity. The Scaling Up Nutrition (SUN) movement (http://scalingupnutrition.org/about) involves more than forty developing countries, together with donors, civil society, the private sector and UN organizations, in a collaborative effort to end food insecurity.

“Calling for quality, not just quantity” appears to be a growing focus of these individual and combined efforts. The issue of quality standards – in particular who sets those standards – is being hotly contested at the  second session of the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership TTIP) talks soon to be resumed in Brussels. As described in yesterday’s post, competing Minnesota interests are on the table in those negotiations – more on that in a separate post.

The real challenge for mere mortals is to pay attention!  The talks do make a difference to anyone who depends on a healthy food chain.  It may take some digging to learn what’s happening – to sort out the players and their ultimate goal, consider the implications on the farm economy, the food business, the environment, and the safety, price and nutritional quality of the food that reaches our grocery store or food shelf.  Though we may not have time or inclination  to master the regulatory details of food standards, it behooves us to pay attention what’s going on in Brussels. Whether we know it or not, we have a stake in the TTIP talks.

 

What Do Trade, Investment & Regulation Have To Do With Dinner?

The answer is:  Lots!

With all of the news and comment devoted to what’s happening in Washington we may tend to forget that today, October 16, is also World Food Day.  We probably didn’t forget to eat though….

Though World Food Day is truly global in reach, one prism through which to view the what’s happening on the global sphere is to focus on at the second session of the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP), the all-important trade negotiations between the EU and the US.  Actually the negotiators are on hold in Brussels – the US negotiators are stalled by the furlough of government employees.

While the Deciders cool their heels and gird their loins it gives armchair observers a chance to catch up on what’s happening across The Pond.

The intent of TTIP, nee TAFTA, talks is to fashion a trade agreement that removes trade barriers that inhibit trade between the EU and the US.  The trade relationship between the US and the US is by far the biggest in the world, together accounting for about half the entire world GDP and for nearly a third of world trade.  As such, EU and US investments are the real driver of the transatlantic relationship, contributing to growth and jobs on both sides of the Atlantic.  An estimated third of the trade across the Atlantic consists of intra-company transfers.

Topping the agenda for TTIP talks is the issue of differences in technical regulations, standards and procedures.  Commissioner Karel De Gucht, member of the EC in charge of trade, outlines the agenda for the TTIP negotiations in a talk presented October 10 at the annual Aspen Institute Conference in Prague; the theme of the Aspen Institute conference was “Overcoming barriers to growth:  The full video is online http://ec.europa.eu/avservices/video/player.cfm?ref=I082387.

The term “regulatory convergence” as used by TTIP observers and participants refers to a range of considerations that critics maintain would lower or remove “the rules and standards that govern what kind of food is being produced and how.”  Critics see “regulatory convergence” as a pell-mell descent to the lower common denominator – a potential outright threat to our food supply and safety.

For their part the agribusiness industry has “been very vocal about the special objectives.”  Biotech companies want the EU to relax the restrictions on on-authorized GM crop imports, speed up GM authorizations, weaken safety tests for GM crops, and replace mandatory labeling of GM food and feed with voluntary rules.”

This and other goals supported by the agribusiness block are anathema to many critics, academics, environmentalists, and a host of public interest groups.  The Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy (IATP) at the University of Minnesota and Friends of the Earth Europe have published a major paper outlining those organizations’ severe objections to the overt goal of U.S. agribusiness interests.  An excerpt from the conclusions gives the flavor of the report:

Friends of the Earth Europe and IATP call on the European Commission, the European Parliament, the EU’s member states and the US government to prioritise the interests of people and the environment.  To this end they should not pursue transatlantic trade negotiations that compromise democracy, safety, or environmental well-being.

Full text of the position paper, “EU-US trade deal: A bumper crop for ‘big food’? is available at (http://www.iatp.org/documents/eu-us-trade-deal-a-bumper-crop-for-big-food)

The negotiators in Brussels will soon be back at the table.  The forces with an ax to grind will be close at hand.  The reason: Because the TTIP talks do make a difference.  The talks will not garner much media coverage.  Nor will the impact be dramatic or immediate.  The ramifications can be truly catastrophic for those of us who naively assume that the food we eat is safe.

Keeping informed about what’s happening at TTIP — the players, the forces, the issues and potential impact – may require some armchair surfing.  There’s no better starting point than IATP (www.iatp.org) and no clearer goal than that enunciated by Friends of the Earth Europe and IATP who “call for a real trade deal that builds a better future for people and the planet through supporting local food economics agro-ecological farming and vibrant rural communities.”

Such a deal, the partnering organizations say, should aim at the following:

  • Building new economies and improving lives
  • Improving life for future generations
  • Promoting trading conditions in favour of people and environment
  • Bringing transparency and accountability

John Parker, IATP intern, is a bit more blunt when he writes, “We need to begin the work of reclaiming authentic participation in democratic decision-making.  Otherwise we will continue to watch agribusiness steal the game and tell us all to shut up”  (http://civileats.com/2013/10/09/food-democracy-rule-of-the-people-or-corporations/)

 

Secrecy Shrouds Trade Talks – Food Policy, Information Issues on the Table

Oats peas beans and barley grow, Oats peas beans and barley grow

Do you or I or anyone know, how oats peas beans and barley grow?

The toddler’s refrain hums in the interstices of my mind as I try to wrap my head around the Trans-Atlantic Free Trade Agreement (TAFTA) on in progress.  Other regional trade talks, particularly Doha, have piqued my proclivity for perceptive paranoia.  Now, I am focused on two pivotal issues relating to TAFTA.

In a word, I am appalled at 1) the influence of corporate interests on the talks, and 2) equally, at the impenetrable cone of silence that encapsulates the process.   Because international trade agreements seem arcane, remote, irrelevant chats among trusted elite, the vast majority of us are easily duped; in fact, we quietly choose to opt out – we lack the time or interest to keep up.  This in spite of the fact that TAFTA agreements will regulate all U.S. and EU trade and 30% of world trade in goods.

Concerns about the food issues are seminal; talks could formalize low standards for years to come.  Those standards relate to food safety, GMO’s, environmental impact, workers’ rights, packaging, procurement politics, labeling, and other details in which the well-paid devil has his way.  Though consumers do care deeply about such implicit concerns we don’t connect the dinner table reality with the endless chain of regulations over which the clandestine negotiators hold sway.

Furthermore, there are two information threats inherent in the TAFTA talks.  One is the issue of public access to information about what’s going on.  Pre-TAFTA talks have all been held in secret, as have parallel deliberations of other regional trade negotiations. The deciders are enthusiastic about the option to “fast track” the talks, in large part to stem any tide of interest or press coverage.  The second information issue waiting in the wings is core, the potential inclusion of copyright, patent and trademark issues in the talks – the subject of future coverage as the story unfolds

In a powerful protest to the chilling effect of secrecy on the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade deal Senator Elizabeth Warren (Dem, MA) wrote, “Trade agreements are important. They affect everything. – our imports and exports, wages, jobs, the environment, financial services, and even the Internet.  But if people can’t follow the basic outline of the negotiations, then they can’t have any real input into the process. I have heard the argument that transparency would undermine the Trade Representative’s policy to complete the trade agreement because public opposition would be significant.  In other words, if people knew what was going on, they would stop it.  This argument is exactly backwards.  If transparency would lead to widespread public opportunity to a trade agreement, then that trade agreement should not be the policy of the United States. “  (Letter to Michael Froman, then nominee now U.S. Trade Representative appointed by President Obama)

Similarly, voices from the other side of the pond have been raised.  Natacha Cingotti, a campaigner for Friends of the Earth Europe, has written that ”the negotiations must be opened up for public scrutiny.  It is unacceptable that the deal is being negotiated behind closed doors, without timely and full access to the draft documents long the process, and consultation with civil society – all the more since US business groups have access to negotiation texts.”

Officially, TAFTA talks began July 8 in DC.  In fact, corporate leaders and government officials from the U.S. and the European Union have been meeting and have already identified issues deemed to be “trade irritants, “ public interests such as the environment, health concerns, worker rights, small farm concerns, consumer rights and other impediments to trade.  Karen Hansen-Kuhn of the Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy at the University of Minnesota is one of the vocal critics of the process.  “We should be raising standards to protect our health and the environment and improve our food system, not lowering them.  Perhaps if so much of the negotiations weren’t being held in secret, these issues would hold more weight.” Kuhn-Hansen’s words are included in a letter written to trade representatives by a broad-based network of organizations representing a range of public interests.

There is precedent for public concern that reflects the words of Senator Warren.  Writing in Guardian UK Joseph Siglitz cites the history of the Doha talks as an example of what goes wrong behind closed doors.  Given this recent history, he writes, it now seems clear that the negotiations to create a free trade area between the U.S. and Europe, and another between the U.S. and much of the Pacific (except for China) are not about establishing a true free trade system.  Instead, the goal is a managed trade regime – managed, that is, to serve the special interests that have long dominated trade policy in the west.”

So, though I have no idea how oats peas beans and barley grow, I do know that everyone has a right to these and to a full plate of wholesome food essential to life;  I also know that, absent transparency, the rights and interests of the public never make it to the table, no matter the venue. Concerned citizens must demand that the talks be open.  In this era of reduced investigative journalism, we must support a free press that will cover, report and interpret the negotiations from a position that is both informed and fair-handed.