International trade agreements often have far-reaching consequences not only for the economy of a country, but also for people and the environment. It is primarily the most vulnerable groups who suffer most from these agreements.
Countries have traded with each other for many centuries, but international trade as we now know it did not start to develop until the twentieth century. Modern transport and the internet have made it increasingly easy for companies and people all over the word to do business together; distance is becoming less and less important. To make free, fair and equal international trade even easier, various kinds of trade agreements have been created since the middle of the last century, such as the North American Free Trade agreement (NAFTA) between Mexico, the US and Canada, or Mercosur, the customs union between a number of South American countries. In the past three or four decades, however, trade seems to have become an end in itself and not only ignores the interests of people in poorer countries but also actually harms them. How has that happened and what can we do about it?
Free trade in a nutshell
In 1948, 23 countries signed the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT), which contained agreements on free trade and open borders. Over the years, more and more countries joined the initiative. Later, it was decided that global trade should be liberalised even further and, in 1995, the World Trade Organization (WTO) was set up with sufficient powers to supervise that process. All trade agreements now have to comply with the WTO rules.
World Trade Organization (WTO)
The WTO is one of the world’s most powerful organisations and has the single aim of furthering free international trade. Its secretariat is in Geneva and it currently has 161 member states, mainly developing countries, meaning that it represents almost 100% of all global trade. The WTO is run by the member states themselves and its legislative body is the Ministerial Conference, which meets every two years.
The bigger the market share, the greater the power in the WTO
Decisions are officially made in the WTO is on the basis of consensus – all member states must be in agreement – and in theory all member states have the power of veto. In practice, however, the negotiating power of the member states is closely related to the size of their share in the world market. Moreover, developing countries often have fewer financial resources to represent themselves within the WTO and are sometimes literally denied a place at the negotiating table. The EU and a number of member states find the processes within the WTO too laborious, and conclude bilateral agreements. While the existing WTO rules already cause developing countries great problems, the bilateral agreements are even more damaging.
Free trade is more important than people and the environment
Free-trade agreements and the WTO rules often make it difficult for national governments to implement or improve laws and rules, because they overrule such national decisions. Member states that violate WTO rules can face serious penalties and sanctions. To date, some 500 such cases have been brought before the WTO.
At the moment, there are several charges under consideration against countries wishing to make their energy sectors more sustainable. One of these is a complaint from the US against India. India wants to strengthen its solar energy sector, but the US is trying to stop it from doing so. WTO rules on intellectual property are also restricting the access of local populations to affordable medicines.
A level playing field is not favourable for everyone
The ‘level playing field’ that the WTO advocates is often unfavourable for developing countries. Small-scale producers in these countries run a serious risk of losing out because they cannot compete with large foreign companies that can produce more cheaply. The economies of developing countries are often not sufficiently developed to stand up to this unfair international competition.
Poorer countries cannot afford to pay penalties or compensate for sanctions
The WTO rules can impact differently on rich and poor countries. Rich countries that violate the rules can ‘simply’ pay the penalty because they have plenty of money, while this is often more of a problem for developing countries. The same applies to sanctions: if, for example, Burkina Faso threatens the US with an economic sanction, it will have little impact on the US. If the US were to impose sanctions on Burkina Faso, however, it would have disastrous consequences for the latter’s economy. Poorer countries are therefore much more likely to avoid penalties and sanctions than richer countries by not introducing legislation that may contravene WTO rules. Consequently, people and the environment in developing countries are more likely to suffer from the negative effects of WTO rules.
Too little transparency and democracy
Negotiating processes within the WTO are not transparent and national parliaments have little influence on the decisions made within the organisation. Negotiations often take place behind closed doors and at informal ‘mini-summits’ to which not all member states are invited.
What Both ENDS is doing
Together with other civil society organisations, Both ENDS exerts pressure on the Dutch government and the European Commission to take their responsibilities within the WTO and defend the interests of developing countries.
In 2013, 2015 and 2017, Both ENDS attended the WTO Ministerial Conference as official civil society adviser to the Dutch government. A representative from Both Ends travelled with the Dutch delegation to inform the government from the inside on the standpoints and concerns of civil society organisations worldwide.
Besides directly influencing the Dutch government and the EU, Both ENDS also works continually with civil society organisations in developing countries. We provide these organisations with information so that they can represent their interests and persuade their own governments to defend people and the environment in negotiations on trade and investment agreements in and outside the WTO.
Read more about this subject
It sounds so logical: patents and other intellectual property rights protect investments in innovations, allowing more innovations to be made from which the whole world can benefit. Such as new medicines or drought-resistant crops. But in practice, these property rights often have the opposite effect, hindering access to innovations for those who need them the most.
Investment treaties must be inclusive, sustainable and fair. That means that they must not put the interests of companies before those of people and their living environment.
Together with civil society organisations from all over the world, the Fair Green and Global (FGG) Alliance aims for socially just, inclusive and environmentally sustainable societies in the Netherlands and the Global South.
News / 9 June 2022
This week, Geneva will be the epicenter of world trade, as trade ministers and other representatives from around the world gather for the World Trade Organization (WTO) ministerial conference. Liesje Schreinemacher, the Dutch Minister of Foreign Trade and Development Cooperation, is present with a delegation. Our colleague Burghard Ilge is joining as an official member of the delegation, to represent civil society organisations. Colleague Fernando Hernandez will also travel to Geneva, to follow and try to influence the negotiations from outside the conference room together with other civil society organisations from around the world.
News / 25 April 2022
The European Union (EU) continues to demand that countries of the South introduce plant variety protection rights according to UPOV 91 in free trade agreements. This is happening in the ongoing negotiations of the EU with Indonesia, trying to take away Indonesia's flexibility to implement a law that suits its own needs and priorities. We therefore call to sign our letters on this subject to the European Commission and the Indonesian government.
Publication / 12 April 2022
Event / 22 February 2022, 16:00 - 17:30
What is the EU-Mercosur association treaty and why is it controversial? What could be the implications of the treaty for people and their livelihoods both in EU and Mercosur countries? For more information about these and other issues, see our new publication and join our interactive webinar next week!
Blog / 18 February 2022
Minister Liesje Schreinemacher for Foreign Trade and Development Cooperation recently made her first working visit, to Kenya and Uganda. With this visit, the minister made a flying start in honouring the pledge in the new government's coalition agreement to formulate a 'targeted Dutch Africa strategy'. Such a strategy is desperately needed as, too often, our foreign trade is conducted at the expense of people and the environment, including in countries in Africa. The new strategy presents a perfect opportunity to ensure that the 'trade and aid' agendas are closely aligned.
Blog / 10 December 2021
Pharmaceuticals hold on to their patents and (our) governments do not remove the barriers to free production that were raised under international trade agreements years ago.
Event / 7 December 2021, 14:00 - 15:15
The European Union's (EU) foreign trade policy has many implications for the sustainability of food systems in developing countries, heavily impacting farmers, breeders, and citizens. The unhidden promotion by the EU of strong intellectual property rights on plants affects food systems from its very basis, i.e., the seeds that are available for farmers to grow. Amongst these intellectual property rights, the main instrument that is advocated by European authorities is the 1991 Act of the UPOV Convention, which provides exclusive rights to breeders over the propagating material of new plant varieties, while diminishing the rights of others to use the material for further breeding and hampering with the rights of farmers to freely save, use, exchange and sell their seeds.
Publication / 29 November 2021
Press release / 25 October 2021
The EU-Mercosur trade agreement leads to environmental destruction, violation of the land rights of farmers and indigenous people and the loss of industrial jobs in the Mercosur countries. It also creates unfair competition for European farmers. The Handel Anders! coalition is calling for an alternative agreement to improve the political cooperation between the EU and the Mercosur countries and is making proposals for just and sustainable international trade rules. That is the core message of new publication presented today in the Nieuwspoort in The Hague.
Blog / 16 February 2021
The Netherlands can contribute much to making agriculture sustainable – nationally and internationally
If the Netherlands wants to make its agriculture and livestock industry sustainable and to ensure that farmers get a fair price for their products, it will also have to look beyond its own borders. The Netherlands is the world's second largest exporter of agricultural products. We have a great impact because, through our trade relations, we uphold a system of intensive agriculture that destroys ecosystems and undermines local production. Partly due to our trade in agricultural products, the Dutch economy is has a large, and growing, footprint. That should and can be different: the Netherlands is in a good position to lead the required transition in agriculture. Fortunately, the party manifestos for the coming elections offer sufficient opportunities to set that in motion. A new coalition can thus take decisive new steps.
Publication / 31 December 2020
Publication / 12 November 2020
Press release / 29 June 2020
Germany must use its influence as president of the EU in the second half of this year to ensure that the controversial EU-Mercosur free trade agreement is not signed. This is the message in a letter presented to German chancellor Angela Merkel today by 265 civil society and environmental organisations from the EU and Mercosur countries. The deal between the EU and Argentina, Brazil, Uruguay and Paraguay will stimulate destruction of the natural environment and the violation of human rights in vulnerable areas in South America. The agreement will also give European farmers an unfair competitive advantage. Dutch signatories to the letter include Greenpeace and Both ENDS and various organisations united in the Handel Anders! coalition.
Blog / 14 April 2020
The World Trade Organization (WTO) is often seen as an institution in crisis, powerless and no longer relevant, and especially after US president Donald Trump decided in 2019 to pull the plug on one of the WTO’s most important bodies (the one dealing with trade disputes). Now, more than 150 civil society organisations, networks and interest groups from around the world have signed an urgent letter to WTO Director General Roberto Azevedo, because they are seriously concerned about the state of affairs within the organization.
News / 18 June 2019
Open letter from more than 340 organisations: EU must stop negotiating treaty with South American countries.
Today, more than 340 organisations from both South America and Europe, including Both ENDS, have sent a joint open letter to European Union leaders calling for the EU to cease negotiations on the EU-Mercosur Free Trade Agreement. The organisations and their constituencies are seriously concerned about increasing violations of indigenous human rights and damage to nature and the environment in Brazil.
Publication / 7 November 2018
News / 14 September 2017
Remember the widespread protests against trade agreements TTIP and CETA? One of the main worries was the Investor-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) mechanism these treaties contain. Now the European Commission has proposed to set up a Multilateral Investment Court. Is that good news?