Global trade policy agreements are often felt hardest far from the boardrooms where they are thrashed out. Often, they act to strip people of basic rights like water and electricity. Karoline Kemp looks at five examples where communities are claiming their rights.
South Africa: Soweto fights Eskom
Eskom, the country's electricity provider, has featured predominantly in recent South African news because of continuing power outages in various parts of the country. But these power outages have not affected many in the townships that house the majority of the nation's black population. Soweto, in Johannesburg, is the largest of these townships, and is home to several million working class people, most of whom struggle to make ends meet. Electricity is simply too expensive for many, and as a result, many make do with alternative forms of lighting, heating and cooking.
In 1996 the African National Congress (ANC), adopted neoliberal policies, turning their back on a proposed Reconstruction and Development Program (RDP), and opting instead for the GEAR program. The GEAR program, on the other hand, was developed by economists and World Bank officials, and, as a neo-liberal program, emphasized growth, adding that redistribution would come only after growth. Meant to drive this growth, it set targets to reduce inflation, boost the private sector, and liberalise formerly government run agencies, including Eskom. In order to attract investors, Eskom set about increasing profits, in order to offer a return on investment, which was done through a strict system of cost recovery.
In places like Soweto this meant that electricity cut offs were made as a means of recouping debt and making sure people paid for their electricity use. According to activist Trevor Ngwane, at one point, Eskom was cutting off over 20 000 homes per month, and over 70% of Soweto's population had increasing debts to the company. The Soweto Electricity Crisis Committee, co founded by Ngwane, was formed to unite Soweto against electricity cutoffs, and claimed as its slogan: “Electricity is a right, not a privilege.” The group lobbies government and other policy groups and, significantly, reconnects those homes that have been cut off, providing residents with the electricity they need. Their work has spread beyond Soweto, and they are active all over South Africa, campaigning now not only for electricity, but also water. Their approach is one of participatory democracy, and they call for policies that respond to the needs of the people - that is, the poor, who make up the majority of South Africa - and demand for free services, including electricity, water, housing, health care and education, for all. The Soweto Electricity Crisis Committee sees themselves as a part of a larger anti-globalisation, anti-capitalist movement, and calls for people around the movement to join hands to fight against imperialism and anti-poor policies.
Source:
Article based on an interview between Trevor Ngwane and Walter Turner on KPFA's Africa Today. The transcript can be found at:
Ghana: The fight for water
World Water Day of 2005 saw Biwater, one of the multinational firms bidding for the privatization of Ghana's water sector, pull out, reported Ghana's Business News. Ghana's government has been fighting, with the support of the World Bank and International Monetary Fund, for several years to privatize the nation's water in attempts to gain access to external assistance and loans. Ghana currently faces inadequate water provision, blamed on years of poor management, lack of investment and poor technical capacity. The government argues that the only way to improve the situation is to inject fresh income into Ghana Water, and that the only way to do this is to privatize. Critics and activist organisations, such as the National Coalition Against Privatisation of Water, have been active in opposing the initiatives, arguing that, contrary to government assurance of the schemes making water cheaper and more accessible, the plan will in fact only undermine access to safe water for all Ghanaians.
While Biwater withdrew it's application to partner with the government, numerous other multinational corporations are still seeking involvement in the project, and the government has gone ahead and secured a grant of $103 million from the World Bank, reports Irin News. According to Public Citizen, the mere prospect of the privatization of water has had the effect of doubling tariffs, in order to “condition” the water market for international competition. World Bank conditions also stipulate that no subsidies will be given to low income houses, and that water must be sold at full market rates.
Public Citizen brings to light some of the startling statistics: in a country where over half the population earns less than $1 a day, and 40% of people fall below the national poverty line, over 35% of Ghanaian's lack access to safe water, and almost 70% have no sanitation services. Water related illnesses are the cause of over 70% of diseases in Ghana. Studies in the early 2000s showed poor households spent between 18 and 25% of their income on water alone. In these conditions water vendors can charge up to 10 times more than the official water provider.
In light of these statistics, IMF and World Bank policies of “increased cost recovery” and “automatic tariff adjustment mechanisms” are considered by activists to deny basic human rights. With civil society locked out of any of the decision-making processes, many are concerned that Ghana's need for financial resources have inhibited any alternative water options, and go further to undermine access to one of the world's most basic rights.
Sources:
Ghana National Coalition Against the Privatisation of Water - Statement
http://www.isodec.org.gh/campaings/water/
Water Privatisation Suffers Setback - Biwater Pulls Out
http://www.citizen.org/cmep/Water/cmep_Water/reports/ghana/
Ghana: Privatisation brings new investment to water company
http://dominionpaper.ca/environment/2004/05/27/like_water.html
Africa: Stop Economic Partnership Agreements!
Beyond what is required of African countries by the World Trade Organisation, Economic Partnership Agreements (EPAs) have been set up between the European Union (EU) and African, Caribbean and Pacific countries (ACP) in order to enable European market access to goods and services in Africa. These negotiations, which began in 2002, are meant to promote sustainable development and contribute to poverty eradication in the ACP countries through the liberalisation of trade and tariffs.
But critics, including those academics and activists who form the Global Call for Action to Stop EPAs campaign, argue that these “partnerships” are in fact unequal; the EU has overwhelming economic and political power, and as such, can impose their interests, agenda and stipulations on ACP countries, which, as a whole, are fragile, both politically and economically, and are dependent, to a large extent, on external funders. This vulnerability has the potential for poverty and debt to increase, and destabilize the economies of these nations.
Critics argue that these EPAs conspire to deindustrialise Africa, simply making them suppliers of raw materials and ensuring their markets are wholly dependent on Europe, which inhibits their already limited capacity, reports Third World Network Africa.
That EPA negotiations are taking place away from any public monitoring means that the large civil society base that has assembled around this issue has had little say in the discussion. Civil society organisations argue that EPAs will have negative effects, leading to deeper inequalities, greater unemployment, the loss of livelihoods, insecurity of food and other resources and will undermine social and human rights. They call for the EU and ACP negotiators to affirm the principles of non-reciprocity, protect ACP producers, reverse trade and investment liberalization, and perhaps most importantly, allow that alternatives be found for ACP countries to pursue their own development strategies that work best for them.
Sources:
Global Call for Action to Stop EPAs - Campaign Statement
http://twnafrica.org/atn/campaigns/day4.htm
Previous Pambazuka News articles on EPAs
PAMBAZUKA NEWS 216: Economic Partnership Agreements: territorial conquest
by economic means?
Economic Partnership Agreements and putting development first
Meeting Africa’s human development needs and the failure of EPAs
Predictions for the economic partnership agreements negotiations: EU=1, ACP=0
Cameroon: Logging industry destroying environment and livelihoods
Cameroon's logging industry is well known for its lax laws, unsustainability and environmental destruction. According to a Global Forest Watch report, at the end of the 1990s there were almost 500 logging companies registered with the government, most of which were foreign owned. The same report reveals that over 76% of the country's forests have been logged, or are allocated as concessions, and as one of the few sectors that has remained profitable in Cameroon, the logging industry has emerged as one that offers short-term profits to foreign multinationals who benefit from few government controlled mechanisms to protect the environment and social needs of the population.
Logging, both legal and illegal, has led to the decrease in forest cover by over 2 million hectares, and primary forest cover is quickly diminishing, argues the Global Forest Watch report. The Cameroonian forests are some of the most species rich in the entire Congo Basin, and some trees take over a hundred years to grow. In addition to huge environmental impacts, the social effects of logging have also been significant. Cameroon boasts a large indigenous population, most of whom are dependent on the forest for shelter, food and medicine. With ancestral and spiritual ties to the land they inhabit, most know no other way of life, and logging has disrupted not only their ability to maintain healthy, safe lifestyles, but also their right to the land. According to Friends of the Earth Cameroon, those who have protested the logging companies have been violently repressed, and with their rights barely recognised, most have no recourse or protection from the multinational corporations who are exploiting their land.
Sources:
The True Value of a Tree: Interview with Benoit Ndamea, Friends of the Earth Cameroon
http://www.foei.org/publications/link/95/e95benoit.html
Global Forest Watch: An Overview of Logging in Cameroon
http://www.globalforestwatch.org/common/cameroon/english/report.pdf
Logging Industry Threatens to Destroy Rich African Forests
http://www.trfic.msu.edu/news_info/news_archive/20000818loggingafrica.htm
Cameroon: Logging industry destroying environment and livelihoods
Cameroon's logging industry is well known for its lax laws, unsustainability and environmental destruction. According to a Global Forest Watch report, at the end of the 1990s there were almost 500 logging companies registered with the government, most of which were foreign owned. The same report reveals that over 76% of the country's forests have been logged, or are allocated as concessions, and as one of the few sectors that has remained profitable in Cameroon, the logging industry has emerged as one that offers short-term profits to foreign multinationals who benefit from few government controlled mechanisms to protect the environment and social needs of the population.
Logging, both legal and illegal, has led to the decrease in forest cover by over 2 million hectares, and primary forest cover is quickly diminishing, argues the Global Forest Watch report. The Cameroonian forests are some of the most species rich in the entire Congo Basin, and some trees take over a hundred years to grow. In addition to huge environmental impacts, the social effects of logging have also been significant. Cameroon boasts a large indigenous population, most of whom are dependent on the forest for shelter, food and medicine. With ancestral and spiritual ties to the land they inhabit, most know no other way of life, and logging has disrupted not only their ability to maintain healthy, safe lifestyles, but also their right to the land. According to Friends of the Earth Cameroon, those who have protested the logging companies have been violently repressed, and with their rights barely recognised, most have no recourse or protection from the multinational corporations who are exploiting their land.
Sources:
The True Value of a Tree: Interview with Benoit Ndamea, Friends of the Earth Cameroon
http://www.foei.org/publications/link/95/e95benoit.html
Global Forest Watch: An Overview of Logging in Cameroon
http://www.globalforestwatch.org/common/cameroon/english/report.pdf
Logging Industry Threatens to Destroy Rich African Forests
http://www.trfic.msu.edu/news_info/news_archive/20000818loggingafrica.htm
Kenya: Women workers turn to flower power
Kenya's flower market falls into numerous trade agreements, including the African Growth and Opportunity Act (AGOA), the African, Caribbean and Pacific - European Union (ACP-EU) Trade Agreement and the Common Market of Eastern and Southern Africa (COMESA), all of which open the region up to trade and allow for preferential treatment, including duty and quota free benefits and regional free trade, according to the Export Processing Zones Authority of Kenya. In addition to these trade agreements, Kenya has received financial assistance from the World Bank and USAID to get their agricultural industries off the ground, reports the International Labour Rights Fund.
The agricultural sector fits into all of these trade agreements, and accounts for almost a quarter of Kenya's GDP. Almost 75% of the population relies on agriculture, whether it be directly or indirectly, and the flower industry employs at least 50 000 Kenyans directly and another 70 000 in related industries. According to the Export Processing Zones Authority of Kenya, cut flowers dominate the horticulture exports, and this crop has overtaken both coffee and tourism as a source of foreign exchange. The EU currently receives the largest portion (over a quarter) of their cut flowers from Kenya, but cut flowers from the country end up as far as Asia, Australia and the US.
While Kenya's government benefits economically from this industry, critics argue that people, and women especially, are suffering as a result of lax laws, environmental hazards, dangerous working conditions and harmful power dynamics. According to the report by the International Labour Rights Fund, over half of Kenyan flower workers are employed only as “casuals,” and as such, they do not receive benefits, cannot join unions and have no job security. Further, the Kenya Human Rights Commission reveals that workers are often forced to do unpaid overtime, working as long as 12 hours a day, with few breaks. Many employees have been exposed to dangerous toxins from the fertilisers and pesticides that are used on the crops, which often lead to skin irritations, problems with sight and many more unknown effects, according to an article entitled “Cut Flower Industry Accused of Human Rights Abuse”.
As a result of these extreme human rights violations, local groups are stepping up to let the industry know that the working conditions they are forced into are not acceptable. With the help of Women Working Worldwide, the Kenya Women Workers Organisation has highlighted the plight of flower workers. They undertake various projects, including initiatives that include non-violent campaigns for worker's rights, lobbying and advocacy, community development projects, capacity building and the encouragement of women's participation in decision-making processes. Through their work they raise awareness and offer support to women exploited in Kenya's flower industry.
Sources:
Kenya Women Workers Organisation
http://www.kewwo.org
Cut Flower Industry Accused of Human Rights Abuse
http://www.newsfromafrica.org/newsfromafrica/articles/art_882.html
Codes of Conduct in the Cut-Flower Industry
http://www.laborrights.org/projects/women/Flower_Paper_0903/flower_paper_countries.htm
Author
Anonymous (not verified)
