TRADE JUSTICE PILIPINAS

c/o Focus on the Global South. 19 Maginhawa Street, UP Village, Diliman, Quezon City. +6323552578

at dti.jpg

Workers from SENTRO and Partido ng Manggagawa (PM) picketed the DTI Office in Cebu Friday as the second round of negotiations for EU-Philippines free trade agreement were winding down. Photo courtesy of SENTRO-Cebu

As the second round of negotiations for an ambitious and comprehensive free trade and investment agreement between the European Union and the Philippines is underway in Cebu City, Philippines from February 13-17, Trade Justice-Pilipinas, a newly convened broad platform campaigning for alternative trade and investment policies, is calling on the Duterte government to desist from negotiating a trade agreement that is biased in favor of the corporate interest and will threaten peoples rights and welfare.

Trade Justice Pilipinas raises its serious concerns over this corporate deal that favors the interest of corporations over people and the environment.

Launched in December 2015, the EU-Philippines FTA is a new generation free trade agreement that will lock-in the country to economic policies that will have far reaching implications on peoples rights and welfare and gives primacy to corporate interests over peoples needs.

The chapter on intellectual property rights will extend patent on medicines. The provision on data protection will provide further protection to patent holders by putting in place new requirements that will restrict the Food and Drug Administration from issuing marketing authorization for new versions of the drug. This chapter will threaten public health and peoples access to affordable medicines, undermining our Cheaper Medicines Law.

The chapter on investments will give corporations the right to sue the government over policies and regulations.  Under the infamous Investor State Dispute Settlement Mechanism or ISDS, corporations are given the power to take legal action against the State in private and exclusive investment arbitration courts. Movements have heavily criticized the ISDS provision across the EU as one of the elements of the toxic deal between EU and the United States. It has been roundly rejected by 97% of respondents in a public consultation conducted by the European Commission (EC) itself.

The EU has advanced a so-called reformed ISDS in the EU-Philippines FTA talks called Investor Court System or ICS, supposedly addressing the concerns over ISDS. But ICS is wolf in sheep’s clothing. The fundamental issues raised against ISDS remain a concern under ICS. European groups who have analyzed the reformulated ISDS have seen that the EU proposal will perpetuate investors’ attacks on health and environment.

The agreement will also provide explicit consent to the submission of a claim by corporations under investment arbitration tribunals. The recent investment arbitral decision on the Baggerwerken Decloedt En Zoon (BDZ) versus the Philippines case in favor of the Belgian corporation should be a wake up call to the Duterte administration on the dangers posed by free trade and investment agreements to our national interest.  The International Center for the Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID) has ordered the Philippine government to pay P800 million (US$17 million) to the Belgian dredging company for scrapping the P18.7-billion Laguna Lake Rehabilitation Project (LLRP) in 2011. Aside from the award granted to winning claims, losing parties are also obliged under these agreements to shoulder the legal costs of both parties.  In the Fraport case for example, it has been reported that the Philippine government spent US$58 million for litigation. These agreements therefore represent a huge strain on public coffers and on taxpayer’s money.

The EU-Philippines FTA is in the mold of other new generation agreements that have provisions that prohibit performance requirements, such as policies on domestic content and export restrictions, policies that favor employment of Filipinos over foreign workers or even those that push for technology transfer. This represents an erosion of the power of governments to use economic policies to advance its national development goals.

The suspension and closure of mining operations in the country led by the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) is a bright spot in the efforts of the government to ensure the primacy of peoples’ rights over corporate profits. But these actions will be seriously undermined by this agreement that the Duterte government is pursuing with the EU. Already, mining companies have threatened to sue over these regulatory actions by the government, and the FTA with the EU will further expose us to more million-dollar claims by transnational corporations. This FTA is anathema to the Duterte government’s push for responsible mining. 

Lastly on the issue of trade and human rights, the continuation of the trade talks amidst the growing issues of human rights violations in the Philippines is clear indication that both parties in the negotiating table- Philippine government and EU are willing to set aside these issues in favor of commerce. In other words trade trumps human rights.#

Contact:

Joseph Purugganan

Co-convenor

Trade Justice-Pilipinas

josephp@focusweb.org

+639228299450

22 February 2017, Manila, Philippines - Civil society and grassroots organizations from across Asia gathered in Manila for a two-day strategy meeting, February 21 and 22, to discuss a global campaign against inequality. Calling themselves the Fight Inequality Alliance, the group believes that a global movement is what it’s going to take to address and fight inequality, which has reached extreme proportions in this century, and has created devastating impacts on communities and countries, and on the climate.

‘We cannot hope to end poverty and injustice without confronting the over concentration of wealth and power among the few. Inequality is part of the root cause of the many issues we face as people of Asia,’ said Lidy Nacpil, Coordinator, Asian Peoples’ Movement on Debt and Development (APMDD).

“Inequality is undermining the work against poverty, and given the scale of the challenge in tackling extreme inequality, it is only by bringing activists and organizations to work together can greater impact be achieved. There is an urgent need to address the structural causes of inequality through building a people-powered movement around the world,” added Lilian Mercado, Asia Regional Director of Oxfam International.

In its vision and mission statement, Fight Inequality Alliance (FIA) expounded on inequality’s various facets and expressions in societies and the different regions of the world, emphasizing how the “elite few” has access to and control of huge wealth, incomes, products and resources around the globe while the 99 percent tries to survive in precarious working and living conditions.

“Inequality has reached a crisis point around the world. That’s why this alliance is growing and building the power of the people to be stronger than the people with power. Together we must turn the tide against rising inequality,” said Jenny Ricks, Convenor of the Fight Inequality Alliance.

In 2016, an Oxfam study calculated that worldwide, 62 individuals had the same wealth as 3.6 billion people. The wealth of these 62 richest people rose by 45% since 2010 while the wealth of the 3.6 billion people, those comprising the bottom half of the population, dropped by just over a trillion dollars in the same period, a decline of 38%. The average annual income of the poorest 10% of people in the world has risen by less than $3 each year in almost a quarter of a century. Their daily income has risen by less than a single cent every year. Since the turn of the century, the poorest half of the world’s population has received just 1% of the total increase in global wealth, while half of that increase has gone to the top 1%.

“There are wide gaps between macroeconomic indicators of economic growth, incomes, GDP and employment on the one hand, and actual conditions of wellbeing and poverty on the other hand. Even if macro figures show an increase in GDP growth and incomes, at the micro level, we still see increasing unemployment, worsening work conditions, the impoverishment of small farmers and producers, distress migration, and growing feminization of poverty,” explained Shalmali Guttal, Executive Director of Focus on the Global South, a regional organization based in Bangkok but with national advocacies in India, the Philippines, and the Mekong region.

Environmental catastrophes are also a manifestation of the massive inequality being faced globally. Climate science puts the accountability for climate change squarely on the excessive use of fossil fuels by the North starting from over a century ago. In the last few years, climate change impacts ranging from extreme heat and prolonged dry seasons to more devastating storms and unprecedented volumes of rainfall bore down on the Philippines, Myanmar, Nepal, Bangladesh, Pakistan, India, Vietnam, Cambodia, Lao PDR and other developing countries, aggravating hunger, job insecurity, and negatively impacting migration and peace and order in the region.

“It is our stark realization that winning our fight to save the environmental is something we cannot do without tackling root causes, without confronting the malaise of inequality,” said Yeb Saño, Executive Director of Greenpeace Southeast Asia.

Organizations at the forefront of the formation of this movement have been involved in various initiatives addressing poverty and other social-economic development issues but they see the urgency of coming together to face an enormous challenge, the biggest threat to “human development” and humanity itself. At the international level, the lead groups in the alliance are ACT Alliance, ActionAid International; Civicus, Asian Peoples Movement on Debt and Development (APMDD); FEMNET; Focus on the Global South; Global Alliance for Tax Justice; Greenpeace; International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC); and Oxfam International. But it is the main strategy of FIA to build upon the plans and actions crafted by national organizations in recognition of specific conditions and issues within countries and societies.

“Our organization has been doing various campaigns from when it was established in 1958, especially to achieve women empowerment and gender equality. But we can do better if we join others who have the same voice as us. In this way we can be stronger,” said Unique Lohani of the All Nepal Women’s Association.

Indonesia-based group Prakarsa has been working as well “to make our society better through improving access to and participation in the economic and political processes of our country, as well as social relations. According to Ah Maftuchan, Prakarsa recognizes that “poverty in many countries have been reduced, but the poor are very slow in getting income increase because of rising inequality. We are keen about putting inequality as part of our advocacy. Our government is setting up programs to fight inequality but we need to advocate more to push it to address inequalities in education, health, income, social insurance, labor protection, among others.”

“A movement of national alliances is seen as the key driver of change and will be supported by regional and international solidarity and action to amplify it. The alliance will be a radical voice for transformational social and economic alternatives,” the FIA statement said. #

Media contact: 

Joseph Purugganan, Philippines Coordinator, Focus on the Global South

Tel: +63 922 829 9450 | Email: josephp@focusweb.org

Angelica Carballo Pago, Media Campaigner, Greenpeace Southeast Asia - Philippines

Tel: +63 949 889 1332 | Email: apago@greenpeace.org

Dinah Fuentesfina, International Campaigns Mobilisation Manager, ActionAid

Tel: +66 (0) 933539926 | dinah.fuentesfina@actionaid.org

Photo caption: Trade activists protesting the 17th round of negotiations for the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement (RCEP) in Kobe, Japan. 27 February 2017. Photo by Shoko Uchida.

1 March 2017

Trade Justice Pilipinas a broad platform campaigning for just trade and investment policies expresses its opposition to and calls on the public to resist international economic agreements like Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement (RCEP) and other new generation FTAs that advance corporate agenda over peoples rights and welfare.

The demand was made as governments from 16 countries in the Asia-Pacific region converged in Kobe, Japan for the 17th round of negotiations for the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement (RCEP).

There is a stronger push for RCEP in the wake of the US withdrawal from the Trans Pacific Partnership Agreement (TPP).  RCEP is now presented as tan alternative arena for advancing trade and investment agenda in the Asia Pacific Region.  

What is being glossed over in the rush to conclude RCEP is that the deal that is being forged is cut in the same mold as TPP.  Like TPP, RCEP is a new generation FTA that could further inequality and wealth concentration, environmental destruction and the climate crisis, and lead to more human rights violations and erosion of peoples’ rights in the region.  

RCEP like TPP is advancing a corporate agenda that would threaten public health and peoples access to medicines. The strong push from Japan and Korea for TPP-provisions on intellectual property rights in the RCEP negotiations will make it harder for poor people in the region to access affordable medicines particularly life-saving drugs, and for governments to advance public health policies for the benefit of the poor.

RCEP like TPP is advancing the corporate agenda by pushing for an investment regime that will give corporations the right to sue the government over policies and regulations. Under the infamous Investor State Dispute Settlement Mechanism or ISDS, corporations are given the power to take legal action against the State in private and exclusive investment arbitration courts.  ISDS, which has been highly criticized in the context of TPP negotiations, should be strongly rejected as well by governments across Asia as an instrument for weakening the right of State to regulate investments in the name of the greater public interest.

RCEP like TPP will further curtail the power of governments to use public policies to advance development agenda by putting in place prohibitions on performance requirement such as policies on domestic content and export restrictions, policies that favor employment of locals over foreign workers or even those that push for technology transfer.

Amidst the continuing backlash against globalization policies that have disenfranchised and marginalized the working class, the imperative is really to push back on RCEP and new generation trade and investment agreements that advance the corporate agenda over peoples’ interests.#

Joseph Purugganan (josephp@focusweb.org. Tel: +639228299450)

Photo caption: Trade activists protesting the 17th round of negotiations for the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement (RCEP) in Kobe, Japan. 27 February 2017. Photo by Shoko Uchida.

This morning, around 80 community members came together to participate in an event in Cambodia to commemorate International Women’s Day.

Of the participants, around 30 were local schoolchildren, with members of social movements and civil society organisations also participating, including two from Messenger Band, one from Social Action for Change and one from Focus on the Global South.

Community members from Lor Peang shared their thoughts and experiences on women’s and land rights, especially in the context of their long-running land dispute against KDC International, which has greatly exacerbated their daily struggles:

“I struggle for my land but authorities were coming to suppress us; they were not coming to help us. We have to know weapons to fight back. What we can do is go to ask government to help to solve the land conflict for my community. What I expect and hope is to have justice for our community. I want to receive a gift from government to release Ms. Tep Vanny and the other five human rights defenders. Please Prime Minister come to visit our community to hear about the real land conflict with KDC company.” Ms. Keo Vannak, land activist at Lor Peang.

1.jpg

“I have a land conflict with KDC and my livelihood is very poor. No government institutions are helping to solve our land conflict.” Ms. Sim, female activist and widow at Lor Peang community.

“I lost my land in Lor Peang. When I lost my land I lost my livelihood; my husband passed away and I am living as a widowed mother. I have children who need me to support them so I go to work in the factory but it does not mean I no longer join the struggle of land. I still continue to join other activists when I am free. I would like the government to solve our land conflict urgently. I don't understand- today is Women's Rights day but why does the factory owner still work as normal?” Ms. But Touch, a factory worker in Lor Peang community.

6.jpg

“I have lost land in this community. Rights are stated in the declaration on human rights and other conventions; also it is included in Cambodia constitution. In Cambodia from my observation there is a lack of human rights respect and protection, including implementation.” Mr. Peng Rum from CNRP.

"Women play an important role in family and politics." Mr. Sgnoun Ngoun, a land activist at Lor Peang community. 

“I was a former school teacher. I lost my position and career because of the land conflict with KDC company. My son joined school when he was 11 years old. The tactic of the company is for our community to lose the case and so we cannot continue our struggle. We have lost rights to live, land and livelihoods. What we fight for is justice and land for our community and generation.” Ms. Oum Sophy, Lor Peang community representative.

4.jpg

Manila -- For Philippine women’s organizations, the 2017 commemoration of International Women’s Day was a critical action by and on behalf of Filipino women. As the March 8 statement signed by more than 30 organizations, including Focus on the Global South, said, “Filipino women from across all sectors have fought long and tough struggles—and have won many. In the past decades, we asserted for better working conditions for workers, pushed for lands for farmers and decent housing for the urban poor, fought and brought down a dictatorship, claimed our reproductive rights, and resisted sexual and other forms of violence against women.”

But it also underscored that, “…conditions around the world, and in particular, in Philippine society, are far from achieving gender equality and ending misogyny. Especially in these times when forces promoting patriarchal and anti-poor policies return to power.”

Indeed, women workers and from the urban poor communities (mainly in Tondo, one of the oldest districts in Manila populated mostly by informal settlers), which have been the main target of the Duterte government’s Tokhang or war on drugs, came out of their homes, had a noise barrage and marched towards the historic Plaza Miranda, where protesters have often converged for political actions. At Plaza Miranda they were met by other sectoral women’s organizations as expression of solidarity; the main message was to show that women were casting away fear that harassment, extrajudicial killings, and other forms of violence have instilled in them.

“Rice and roses, not violence. Land, livelihood, reproductive health service, gender-fair education, job security, not violence,” the women declared via speeches and banners.

March 8 has come and gone, but this is the promise the women made: “The Filipino women have persisted amidst all these challenges in the past. The Filipino women will not be cowed, not now, not ever. We shall always rise to the occasion to struggle and defend our victories; to further fight for and realize our rights. We shall not allow the forces of misogyny, of death, of all kinds of violence against women to overcome us.” (For the full statement, please go to https://www.facebook.com/focusontheglobalsouth/posts/10155107762434438 …)

On 14 March 2017, the International Day of Action for Rivers, we, the Save the Mekong Coalition along with civil society and community partners from Thailand, Cambodia and Vietnam, make this statement to express our gratitude to the Mekong River and the way of life she supports. The Mekong is our mother river, home to unique biodiversity and a lifeline for millions of people throughout the river basin. We recognize the efforts of Mekong communities who are working to protect and preserve the unique ecosystems and resources of the river for future generations. 

We are extremely concerned by large-scale development plans, which ignore knowledge, cultures, and voices of the women and men in the Mekong Basin whose lives and beliefs are inherently intertwined with the Mekong River. Planning and decision-making over hydropower and other developments on the Mekong River have lacked public participation, transparency and accountability.

Rivers are essential in sustaining human existence globally, and yet, everywhere, freshwater systems are being destroyed and degraded. With climate change and increasing water scarcity, it is more important than ever to protect these vital resources and the biodiversity, natural systems and way of life they support.

On this day around the world hundreds of communities are joining together to take action for their rivers. We stand in solidarity with communities along the Mekong River. We re-affirm our commitment to work together across the basin, prioritizing the voices of Mekong communities in decision-making over the future of the Mekong River for current and future generations. 

This declaration is available to download in Khmer language below. 

FTAs aren’t just about ‘trade’. They’re comprehensive agreements to lock in free market capitalism, strengthen the power of global corporations, finance, and powerful governments, and advance their geopolitical objectives. 

There are direct links between FTAs, climate change, ecological devastation, and violations of Indigenous Peoples’, workers’ and farmers’ rights. 

We must struggle for real systemic change, saying “no to FTAs and global free market capitalism”, combatting racist politics and defending mother earth.

Click here to download the English edition 

Haga clic aquí para descargar la edición en español 

Cliquez ici pour télécharge l'édition française 

For further information, please contact info@nyeleni.org or visit www.nyeleni.org

On 21 March, the International Day of Forests, 200 organisations are reminding the UN Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) that its misleading forest definition dating back to 1948 must be changed. The definition has allowed the plantations industry to hide the devastating ecological and social impacts of large-scale monoculture tree plantations behind a positive forest image.

FAO’s forest definition has allowed the plantations industry to call their monoculture plantations of fast-growing species such as eucalyptus, pine, rubber or acacia "forests" because it defines a forest only by the number, height and canopy cover of trees on an area. The FAO forest definition has been used as blueprint for over 200 national and international forest definitions since 1948.

Under the guise of this FAO forest definition, the industry has been able to expand fast, especially in the global South, where monoculture tree plantations now cover some several tens of millions of hectares of land. This expansion has brought misery to countless rural and peasant communities, and indigenous peoples. Families have lost land and livelihood where monoculture tree plantations have taken their land, destroyed their way of life, dried up their water springs and streams and poisoned their food with agro-toxins. (1)

"For almost 70 years, the misleading FAO forest definition has served the tree plantations industry well. They have hidden the destruction caused when diverse forests, grasslands and peatlands overflowing with life are converted into 'green deserts' made up of monoclonal trees in straight rows behind the positive forest image provided by the FAO," says Winfridus Overbeek, international coordinator of the World Rainforest Movement.

Forest restoration as climate protection debate adds urgency to get forest definition right

"With the adoption of the UN Paris Agreement on climate change, revision of this FAO forest definition takes on additional urgency", says Guadalupe Rodríguez from Salva la Selva/Rettet den Regenwald, "it would be a tragedy if the misleading FAO definition makes expansion of these damaging tree monocultures eligible for climate funds earmarked for "reforestation" and "forest restoration." This would not only harm even more communities where tree plantations take over land used by villagers but also undermine climate protection: Carbon-rich forests could be destroyed and be replaced by monoculture tree plantations with countries claiming that according to the FAO forest definition, no forest area has been lost - despite the massive loss of carbon, biodiversity, water sources and local livelihoods when forests are replaced by monoculture plantations.

An example where the deliberate mis-labelling of plantations as forests allows the plantations industry to tap into climate funds is the 'African Forests Restoration initiative' (AFR100). Launched at the 2015 UN climate meeting, it aims to cover 100 million hectares that participating African governments consider “degraded” lands. The World Bank will make USD 1 billion available for this plan – and relies on the FAO forest definition to define eligibility for funding. Unsurprisingly, one of the most controversial tree plantations companies operating in Africa, the Norwegian-based Green Resources (2), was among the keynote speakers at a 2016 conference in Ghana, where the implementation of the AFR 100 initiative was prominent on the agenda.

2017 FAO International Forests Day theme 'Forests & Energy' shows urgent need to change forest definition 

"Industrialized countries' unsustainable energy demand combined with their new quest for 'renewable' energy is already converting forests in the global South into industrial 'biomass' plantations. Yet, the word 'plantation' does not appear once on the FAO's "Key messages" webpage for the International Forests Day 2017", says Wally Menne of the Timberwatch Coalition, South Africa. For example, to fuel all of the UK's energy requirements through eucalyptus­-based biomass would require some 55 million hectares of plantation in Brazil – an area larger than twice the size of the UK.

200 groups today join the more than 130 thousand groups and individuals who called on the FAO in 2015 to rise to the challenge and urgently change the FAO forest definition because tree plantations are not forests.

Contacts:

World Rainforest Movement:

Winfridus Overbeek winnie(at)wrm.org.uy Tel: +55 27 988 219007

Timberwatch Coalition:

Wally Menne plantnet(at)iafrica.com Tel: +27 (0) 82 4442083

Rettet den Regenwald:

Guadalupe Rodriguez guadalupe(at)regenwald.org Tel: + 49 40 410 38 04 3

Notes:

(1) The letter sent to FAO today can be found here and below. It is also available in Spanish, French and Portuguese.

(2) In response to the 2015 petition signed by over 130,000people calling on FAO to change its forest definition, the FAO claims that its role is merely to harmonize the different national and international forest definitions of forests elaborated since 1948. However, the letter sent today shows how this view ignores that in fact, the FAO forest definition is THE reference for many of the national definitions, in the UN climate talks, in initiatives such as AFR100, etc.

Image: Rubber plantation in Southern Lao PDR

Forest destruction and encroachment on public land are issues that have figured highly on the agenda of the current military government. Since 2014, the introduction and implementation of controversial legislations, cabinet resolutions and policies, including NCPO Orders no. 64/2014 and 66/2014, have restricted access and use of land and forestry land by marginalized and landless peasants, indigenous peoples, and villagers, despite previous recognitions by the Constitution of their rights and a long period of settlement on the land. Various cases of land rights violations including of ethnic communities have been documented. Many of the victims and affected communities who have been forcibly evicted, or had their lands expropriated by State agencies, have not received any compensation or alternative land. Many of them are also facing criminal cases and civil suits especially around allegations of causing climate change, and their access to legal aid and justice remains difficult.

After three years of implementation, the impacts of these legal instruments and policies on the poor, landless and marginalized populations are visible and clear. Cross Cultural Foundation, Isan Land Reform Network, Center for Protection and Revival of Local Community Rights, Karen Network for Cultural and Environmental Tanowsri Area, and Focus on the Global South, will hold a public forum to present and review the situation of land rights in the past years under current military government, and the access to justice for people defending their land rights. 

We would like to extend an invitation to you to attend and participate in the forum, which will be held onMarch 28, 2017 from 8.30 am to 4.30 pm, at room no. 803, Chaloem Rajakumari 60 Building, Chulalongkorn University. Thai and English translation will be provided.

We very much look forward to seeing you at the forum. 

Program

“Situation of forest and land rights, and access to justice in Thailand”

09.00 – 09.30 am         Welcome remark by Associate Professor Dr. Prapart Pintobtang,  Director of Chulalongkorn University Social Research Institute.

Commemoration of the missing of land rights defenders from Mr. Pholachi Rakchongcharoen, Billy to Mr. Den Kamlae

09.30-12.00 pm           Presentation of situations of land and forest, and lead the discussion by

• A representative from Isan Land reform network
• A representative from Bantan land reform network
• A representative from Four regions slum network
• A representative from Southern Peasant Federation
• A representative from Northern Peasant Federation
• A representative from Indigenous Peoples community

Moderator: Dr. Chainarong Sretthachau, Mahasarakham University

12.00 pm – 01.00 pm  Lunch

01.00 pm - 04.30 pm    Discussion and Suggested solutions for access to justice on land and forest issues. 

Review on land rights cases based on the court’s decision, and voice of the villagers, the defendants in the land rights cases, and the movement of the restoration of right to self-cultivation for livelihood in the forestland

• Mr. Sumitchai Hatthasan,  Director of CPCR
• Mr. Somnuek Tumsupap, Director of Human Rights Lawyer Development Learning Center
• A representative from people who effected from justice process

A presentation on legal reform and interpretation of community rights by Mr. Somchai Homlaor

Moderator: Pornpen Khongkachonkiet, Cross Cultural Foundation

The European Commission proposal for a multilateral mechanism to settle investor-state disputes (ISDS) – publicly branded as a Multilateral Investment Court – would take us down that second path. It threatens to forever lock-in the highly controversial ISDS system that only benefits corporations.

This proposal is part of the negotiations that the EU is holding with Indonesia, Philippines and Myanmar. Furthermore, the EU has presented it to as many as 40 non-EU governments during the World Economic Forum at Davos and also in a meeting last December in Geneva.

This webinar will introduce the current European Commission proposal as well as several critical perspectives on the issue.

Programme

• Overview: What’s in the Commission’s proposal?
• Presentation of the critique based on S2B’s position paper
• Presentation of views from Asia
• Discussion

Organisers

S2B Network, EU-ASEAN FTA Network, Trade Justice Pilipinas, Indonesia for Climate Justice, Focus on the Global South, Transnational Institute (TNI), PowerShift, 11.11.11 and Friends of the Earth International. 

Civil society organizations from Indonesia, Philippines, and Europe criticized the European Union’s Multilateral Investment Court proposal as an attempt to multilateralise the investor-State dispute settlement (ISDS) mechanism and establish a global corporate court system[1].

EU Trade Commissioner Cecilia Malmstrom made a strong pitch for a global investment court at the  meeting between the EU and ASEAN Economic Ministers held in Manila last week.

Indonesia for Global Justice (IGJ) together with Focus on the Global South, Trade Justice-Pilipinas, Transnational Institute, Friends of the Earth International, and Seattle to Brussels Network, organized a Webinar discussion on “A multilateral ISDS? The European Commission proposal for a Multilateral Investment Court", Wednesday (22/2). The webinar discussion explored the strategic debate and critical perspectives on the EU proposal, particularly in relation with the ongoing trade talks between the EU and the Philippines and Indonesia.

The European Commission's proposal would allow foreign investors to bring claims against States on the basis of previously agreed investment protection treaties. It would still allow investors to bypass national court systems. The cases will be adjudicated by a permanent group of lawyers, but the independence and impartiality of this body is being questioned.

This proposal maintains the very same flaws of the ISDS system: only one-side, the investors can initiate claims; foreign investor will not face any obligations; investors do now have to exhaust local remedies and respect for domestic court;, the neutrality of judges is doubtful.

Cecilia Olivet, a researcher at the Amsterdam-based research institute Transnational Institute, said “It is highly regrettable that the European Commission has chosen to disregard the voice of millions of EU citizens who clearly rejected the creation of corporate courts and is attempting to re-legitimise a highly criticised ISDS system. If ever a Multilateral Investment Court is created, it will entrench the already existing broad investor privileges.

Rachmi Hertanti of Indonesia for Global Justice asserted that “the multilateral investment court would certainly contradict the review process of investment treaties carried out by the Government of Indonesia. She also explained that the Indonesia-EU CEPA will be used as a tool for the EU to bind Indonesia automatically on the Multilateral Investment Court”. She finally added “the Multilateral Investment Court will not touch the substance of investment protection treaty that gives so many rights for investor, especially the rights to sue the State. Certainly, this scheme is very far away from the principles formulated under the new Indonesian investment treaty model, which limits the rights of investors, particularly related to the ISDS Mechanism”. 

Joseph Purugganan, a researcher of Focus on the Global South and Convenor of the broad campaign platform Trade Justice Pilipinas, explained that civil society campaigning across the globe has made ISDS a truly toxic element of new generation FTAs. What the EC is trying to do with its earlier proposal for the investment court system and now the multilateral investment court is to project these ideas as alternatives to ISDS, and it is hoping government will buy that idea.

“Unfortunately, the MIC is not an alternative.  It will continue to pose risks to developing countries and lock-in countries to a system that favors corporate rights over peoples rights and welfare. We will campaign in the Philippines and work in solidarity with groups across Asia and the world to expose this toxic new proposal", he added.

The webinar finished with a call to governments to not fall in the EU trap and reject the Multilateral Investment Court proposal. In parallel, governments should conduct a review process of their investment protection treaties.**

Contact:

Rachmi Hertanti: rachmihertanti@gmail.com

Cecilia Olivet: ceciliaolivet@tni.org

Fabian Flues: fabian.flues@foeeurope.org

Joseph Puruganan: josephp@focusweb.org

[1] For a more detailed analysis see Seattle to Brussels network position paper: http://www.s2bnetwork.org/isds-dangerous-crossroads/

New Delhi, 27 March - On Monday, Bharatiya Kisan Union led by Rakesh Tikait joined the Tamil Nadu farmers who have been protesting in Jantar Mantar for two weeks now, offering support to their demands for a complete loan waiver, fair and profitable price for their produce, and drought relief and mitigation measures, including inter-linkage of rivers. 

Nearly 170 drought-affected farmers have been on an indefinite protest in Delhi for over two weeks. 

The farmers from Tamil Nadu, led by P Ayyakanu of South Indian River Interlinking Farmers’ Association, had grabbed widespread attention after they brought along with them what they alleged were skulls of farmers who had committed suicide due to farming distress. 

While speaking to the media P Ayyakanu broke down, “We have been sitting here for two weeks demanding a direct meeting with the Prime Minister, so that we can convey to him our depressing realities. Over four hundred farmers have committed suicide in the last six months in my region. We are being harassed for repaying loans. How will we pay back when there is massive drought and when we don’t get a profitable price for our produce? This year we haven’t cultivated at all”

Tamil Nadu is facing the worst drought in nearly 140 years. The protesting farmers are largely from the delta area of Cauvery river. 

Several of the assembled farmers from Tamil Nadu were seen holding dead rats in their mouths. “It is a symbolic act to show the extreme hunger that exists in rural Tamil Nadu now owing to the farm crisis,” said one of them. 

Rakesh Tikait from Bharatiya Kisan Union said “These are farmers who have traversed 3000 kilometres to reach the capital city to convey their problems to the government. All their demands resonate with the demands of small farmers of North India too. That is why Bharatiya Kisan Union is pledging their support to our sisters and brothers from South India. It is not just in Tamil Nadu, but in every state including Uttar Pradesh farmers are reeling under heavy debt. They have been long demanding a fair support price for their produce, which is atleast 50% more that the cost of production. That demand has not been met by successive governments and we want it to be immediately implemented. To reduce rural distress, it is important that the loans of farmers are waived. Bhartiya Kisan Union has also long been demanding for inter-linking of rivers.”

Rakesh Tikait also mentioned about the need for a National Agricultural Policy. He demanded that a committee be formed to look into all issues of the farmers – including price, issues of debt and loans. "Unless a policy at a national level is not framed, we are just moving in circles", he said. 

The union leader also warned that if demands are not met, they will scale up the agitation and bring all farmers across the various states of India together. Among other leaders of BKU, its general secretary Yudhvir Singh also joined the protests today. 

[Watch video] 

Bharatiya Kisan Union is also a member of the Indian Coordination Committee of Farmers Movements which has prominent farmers’ organisations of the south such as Karnataka Rajya Raitha Sangha and others as its members. 

Several Tamil students were also present at Jantar Mantar offering their support and solidarity to the protesting farmers. 

Political leaders including Sitaram Yechury and D Raja also visited the protesting farmers at Jantar Mantar, New Delhi. 

Reacting to the drought relief of Rs. 2000 crore issued by the Tamil Nadu government, P Ayyakannu said that it is barely enough. 
“For dry land we are given Rs 3000 per acre and for wet land just above Rs. 5000. How is that any relief?” he questioned. 

Incidentally, the Supreme Court was also hearing a petition on farmers’ suicides today and it has asked the Central government to file an affidavit with a road map and a detailed plan of action to deal with the issues of suicide, within four weeks. 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

More photos available here. 

AN INVITATION TO A TALK & FORUM 

Focus on the Global South, the Philippines-Cuba Friendship Association, and the University of the Philippines-College of Mass Communications (UP-CMC) are co-organizing an event dubbed “The Struggle Against Forgetting: A Writer’s (Journalist & Novelist) Perspective,” 4th April 2017, 1 - 4 P.M. at the UP-CMC Auditorium.

Our guest of honor and main speaker at the event is Ms Marta Rojas Rodriguez, Cuban journalist and novelist. Ms Rodriguez covered historic events of the Revolution, including the attacks on the Moncada Barracks in 1953, and wrote reportage on Fidel Castro's travels inside and outside of Cuba. She also has several testimonial books and journalistic chronicles to her name as a war correspondent in Viet Nam and was one of the founders of the Cuban Committee of Solidarity with South Viet Nam. In recent years, she has transitioned to fiction writing, winning the Alejo Carpienter Prize for Novel in 2006.

Please come and join us in a timely, enriching discussion with Ms Rodriguez and our other guest speakers. 

UP President Francisco Nemenzo Jr - Opening Remarks

Mr. Patrick Campos (UP-CMC) - Welcome Remarks on behalf of the Organizers

Ms. Marta Rojas Rodriguez - Main talk

Responses from:

Dr. Diosa Labiste - Department of Journalism, UP-CMC

Dr. Luna Sicat-Cleto - UP-Institute of Creative Writing

Mr. Joseph Purugganan (Focus on the Global South) - Closing Remarks

Moderator: Ms Clarissa V. Militante, Focus on the Global South

See you there!

Ever since the integration of India's peasants into global agri-food markets, their livelihoods have become at risk. In this globalized food system where large corporations rule, small-scale farming is not economically viable because global economic rules are against it. For example, the World Bank's Structural Adjustment Programme (SAP), and the World Trade Organization (WTO) brand of trade liberalization had forced India to open its agricultural markets to foreign agribusiness. Unlike Indian farmers, agribusiness companies receive massive subsidies in Industrial countries like the US. They can produce massive quantities at cheap prices. Trade rules have forced India to allow such agribusiness to sell their cheap produce in India by asking India to lower import duties/tariffs. This dumping of cheap agricultural commodities into Indian markets has pulled down local market prices of agricultural products, and made it difficult for local Indian farmers to compete with rock-bottom prices. While market prices are falling, the cost of inputs is rising. Many agricultural inputs like seeds or fertilizers have become privatized and sold at high prices, which makes it difficult for small farmers to earn profits. These and many other unfair policies have made it difficult for small farmers to survive in globalized markets.

Whether in joint farming, services, or other areas, forming collectives have a number of benefits. Collectives could allow farmers to jointly invest in inputs such as machinery and seeds, to pool and lease land, to build wells and unite in all other efforts to cultivate and market their produce collectively. Cooperatives help farmers buy or sell better due to scale benefits, as well as lower transaction costs for both sellers and buyers. United, producers can more easily arrange technical help in production, processing, or marketing for all of them. (Singh and Singh 2012) 

This study booklet aims to provide an overview of producers' collectives in India, which broadly falls under the cooperative movement. It will also highlight some case studies of successful collective organizations, with a variety of organizational styles and under different laws, mainly to get a taste of the diversity of rural collectives in India.

The paper will start with an introductory section on cooperatives—what cooperative values signify, the difference between top down versus bottom up collective farming models, their brief history, and challenges faced by state controlled cooperatives. After this, we will look at the large cross-section of laws and acts that govern the formation of producers' collectives in India. We will then move into the so-called new generation cooperatives like Producer Companies and Self Help Groups that have proliferated around the country. Finally, we will look at five case studies. This is followed by a conclusive summary of some key lessons. 

Author: Ashlesha Khadse

November 2016

Published by Focus on the Global South 

Sponsored by the Rosa Luxembourg Foundation e.V with funds of the Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development of the Federal Republic of Germany.  

To view presentations click here.

From 21-25 November 2016, about 50 people, involved in struggles to defend the territories, forests and livelihoods of forest-dependent communities, came together in Thailand for a field visit to the Northeast of the country, followed by a 3-days meeting in Bangkok. Besides a delegation from Thailand, other participants came from Myanmar, Cambodia, Vietnam, the Philippines, Indonesia, Malaysia and India.

Participants were peasants and indigenous community activists, as well as members of supporting groups, like local organizations, networks and national NGOs. Participants included women, men and a significant number of youth. The meeting was organized by Focus on the Global South and Project SEVANA South East Asia, both based in Thailand, as well as the School of Democratic Economics (Indonesia), The Corner House (UK) and the World Rainforest Movement (International). The meeting was made possible through the efforts of the participants, and additional support from the Land Core Group from Myanmar, Trocaire in Myanmar, AJWS, Focus on the Global South, OLIN Foundation and SSNC.

The aims of the gathering, which focused on the central question of ´What´s happening to our forests? ´, included promoting exchange and dialogue on old and new threats and challenges faced by communities in the different countries. Despite the diversity of languages and cultures of the participants, they became aware that they have many values and concerns in common, for example the importance of the forest for their livelihoods, as well as the threats and challenges they face in defending their territories and forests from land grabbing and deforestation. Participants discussed and got a better understanding of new terms that are being used to describe official ‘solutions’ to environmental crises, such as ´green economy´, ´green development´ and ´green growth platforms´. Such ‘solutions’ are being put forward by governments and companies in alliance with big conservationist groups as ways of both saving forests and delivering benefits to people. But ecological destruction and land grabbing is continuing and even increasing.

Before our meeting, we learned, during a two-day visit to Phetchaboon and Chayaphum provinces in Northeastern Thailand, about the situation of two communities that have been struggling to secure access to their lands and forests against different state forest institutions that plan to evict them from their territories. Community members in one village are being fined for contributing to climate change for practicing small-scale agriculture in the forest. While big polluters continue polluting, these communities, who have never destroyed their environment, are being blamed for a problem for which they do not bear the responsibility. In another village, people are accused of encroaching on a national park, while in reality they are only reoccupying the land and forests where they used to live. However, this land was taken from them by force by the state for a so-called reforestation project with eucalyptus and teak trees. But these monoculture plantations, although, not being real forests, have rendered much of the local people´s agricultural practices unviable and dried up soils, have not ´dried up´ the peoples´ spirit of struggle. Inspired by their traditions, they have reoccupied and have fought for the last eight years for their lands and their food sovereignty, and have gradually recovered the ecology of their area, showing what it means to live with the forest without destroying it. We also learned about the importance of the unity of the community and inclusion of all community members, youth and elderly, women and men, for such a struggle to be successful.

We learned that under the new ‘green’ trends, the same destructive projects are now labeled as ´green´ with different names, ranging from ´green growth´ to ´green economy´, from ‘sustainable dams’ to ´clean coal´. Parts of the forests are being put under REDD+, supposedly to protect them, but restricting communities´ access to and control over them.  All of this means more environmental and social destruction. Infrastructure and economic corridors are being planned on a larger scale than ever before, and now also include ‘biodiversity corridors’ to make such plans look ´green´. But in such schemes, there is no place for people, for their territories and the forests they depend on. Their lands and forests are classified as “degraded” by states and corporations to justify continued land grabbing for tree plantation schemes. People´s lands are under more pressure than ever before, while mineral extraction has become one of the most widespread activities in the region. Many national governments now very much depend on these extractive activities for their own continuance. As a result of land grabbing, land concentration in the region is also higher than it ever was before. About 6% of the land owners in the region own 2/3 of the farmland for different agribusiness schemes. In recent years, facilitated by legislative changes, about 43 million ha of farmland has gone into corporate hands. International trade deals support these schemes and protect corporations, not communities.

From the exchange among participants, we also learned about a large number of local struggles and the lessons to be learned from these struggles. One is that ‘rights’, as currently defined by the mainstream, are not necessarily connected to justice. Participants noted that rights have become part of a ´checklist´ of mechanisms that promise protection, sustainability, justice and participation of communities, including Environmental Impact Assessments, the principle of Free, Prior and Informed Consent and rules formulated by the Roundtable on Sustainable Palm Oil. But instead of fulfilling their promises, these tools have become part of a broader strategy of managing resistance against large-scale land grabbing rather than securing the rights of people to their territories and the forests they depend on. In practice, communities all over the region are blamed for deforestation and many are persecuted and criminalized. Violence is escalating in many places and militarization a growing trend, especially where people refuse to give up their territories. Also in so called “post-conflict” countries, massive land grabbing for direct investment is taking place. 

It is inspiring how increasingly throughout the region, local people, without intermediation of NGOs or other national and international groups and networks, take charge of their resistance, inspired by their own cultural and spiritual practices. More cross-country learning, more exchange among communities and struggles, new forms of alliance building across the region, and a more autonomous and protagonist role for communities in organizing and taking the struggles forward are some of the suggestions of participants for moving forward after this meeting. All these actions, it was felt, would be ways to reaffirm the importance of strengthening alliance- and solidarity building in a region where communities have historically been separated and isolated from each other under the domination of colonial and national powers and oligarchies. The challenge is thus to reconnect again communities in order to strengthen people´s movements in the region.

By Niabdulghafar Tohming and Matt Davidson

Prior to the arrival of tourists in the peak season of tourism which starts around November – December, Sea gypsies, or what Thais and foreigners call “Chao Le”, from coastal areas of the southern region of Thailand, travel and gather for their annual assembly called “Ngan Ruam Yat Chao Le”—the Assembly of the Sea Gypsies.

Apart from being a space to exchange news and meet friends and relatives, the annual assembly has become a political space for sea gypsies to remind the public of their existence, to share and discuss problems, to make and follow up on commitments, and to conduct dialogues with representatives of the state and other responsible government bodies.

Most of the sea gypsy communities are located in the coastal areas of major tourist spots around Phuket, Krabi, Satun and Phangnaga. Their fate and lives remain deliberately invisible from tourists coming into the country and their monetary weight within the Thai economy.

The tourism industry claims to play significant roles in local and national economies, but the rehabilitation and reconstruction programs to rebuild the industry and needed infrastructures after the 2004 Tsunami has largely unveiled the impact of tourism on local sea gypsies, and further intensified it.

Land and sea are at the center of the sea gypsies’ livelihood, traditions and beliefs. The conflicts over land both with the state and businesses has been a major challenge for these communities. Forced eviction, attacks and threats—physical and psychological—are the common forms of violence they are facing. A climate of fear especially at local community level, little awareness of their rights and lack of strong legal protections for them have allowed these problems and violence to persist.

The 2004 Tsunami and Tourism

The 2004 Tsunami that struck the Andaman Sea was perhaps the most flagrant turning point for the sea gypsy. The tsunami had caused huge destruction and resulted in a large number of casualties. However, for sea gypsies who had rarely participated in land-bound society for most of history, a far stronger tsunami with wider-scale impact hit them. This came in the form of rehabilitation and reconstruction projects.

Historically, land which was home to local indigenous peoples is now owned by hotel corporations who have also snapped up most of the beach front. The indigenous folks have become landless and are now being exposed to different forms of threats and violence.

In Thailand’s southwestern provinces, immediate material damages from the 2004 tsunami had been valued at over $500 million USD - in some cases, almost 90 percent of gross provincial product.[1] Since then, the government has aimed to continually increase investments in the tourist sector in the region, making land ownership more expensive in the Andaman. Those who lost the most were the sea gypsies who were unable to protect their rights to land, tradition and livelihoods.

In efforts to bring tourism back to the area, the government has promoted it heavily - 14 percent of the entire relief budget went to promoting the return of tourism to the area.[2] With the re-influx of tourists, in some islands, the price of land had gone up nearly sevenfold from 37,500 to 250,000 baht per rai (0.625 hectares). Operators and investors drove up property values as the demand for hotel accommodation in these areas exceeded available supply.[3]

This drove up the costs of living including food in the islands. In Lipe island, Satun province, the price of food - especially sea food - drastically increased, and with the mass emergence of tourism and high demand for land and food, sea gypsies were directly affected and faced difficulties to survive on the island. 

The Cost of Tourism

After losing their ancestral lands to private business, the sea gypsies have largely been forced to adopt different ways of living. In December 2016, two local sea gypsy families in Rawai, Phuket province, won a court victory over a land dispute case that they fought against a private company. This allows them to remain on the land. However, in general, the government has shown no solid political will to protect and respect customary land rights, and has prioritized increasing regional income that island hotel companies bring with new investments in tourism-based business. Sea gypsies are now faced with a lack of choice, with the options down to either living too far from the beach to access the commons that nature provides, or on public land.

Forced to leave from their coastal jumping-off points, and with nowhere to dock, the ability of these communities to sustainably fish for themselves was almost annihilated. Large scale fishing groups gained an almost-total industry dominance in the Andaman, and the government began limiting sea people’s rights to fish. Local stateofficials occasionally turn a blind eye to their small-scale fishing in national parks and protected areas outside of the tourist season, but for the most part, and all the time during the tourism season, prohibit their rods and nets in the water. Encouraged to sell handicrafts to tourists, and with no ability to access their historical livelihood, they are losing touch with their traditional way of life.

Many sea gypsies struggle to gain back their land and livelihood, while the government has been encouraging them to make their way by serving the very industry that has boxed them out. No longer able to fish or live along the coast, they have to work serving and selling to tourists, increasing the very activities, investment and corporate presence that have forced them off from the beach. In addition, those who have yet to be fully patriated as Thai citizens, which in some cases was impossible with the current laws owing to a lack of documentation, have their movements restricted legally and functionally live as stateless people.

Though they are considered Thai citizens, those who lack access to parental birth certificates are required to receive written permission from a district governmental body even just to leave the state (as a function of their classed “zero” id cards) they have settled in, and are given little to no representation in governmental proceedings regarding their rights.

The Struggles of Sea gypsies

In June of 2010, the Thai cabinet passed a resolution aiming to address the short term and long term issues of sea nomads. It aimed to solve problems of legal identification and statehood, and to increase land security for claims to ancestral land, as well as protect and promote sea gypsy culture and tradition.  However, after seven years, the fate of sea gypsies is remainedlargely unchanged.   With the influx of tourists into their home, the majority of land conflict cases are still unsolved and they are continuously being pushed away from their source of belief, identity and livelihood.

The sea people lie in a precarious position today. Their livelihood and wellbeing are a question of land and sea rights, for which they are now fighting. Through the annul assembly, they are demanding tourism and policy on land that respect local belief and tradition, and recognize customary land rights of local sea people. Without the changes at the policy and structural levels on tourism and land ownership, and the attitude of those with power, the sea gypsies are far from winning their struggle. 

23 January 2017

[1] Nidhiprabha, Bhanupong. 2007. Adjustment and Recovery in Thailand Two Years after the Tsunami. Tokyo: Asian Development Bank Institute. 

[2] Nidhiprabha, Bhanupong. 2007. Adjustment and Recovery in Thailand Two Years after the Tsunami. Tokyo: Asian Development Bank Institute.

[3] Ibid

The recent investment arbitral decision on the Baagerwerken Decloedt En Zoon (BDZ) versus the Philippines case in favor of the Belgian corporation should be a wake up call to the Duterte administration on the dangers posed by free trade and investment agreements to our national interest.

The investment arbitration case filed in 2011 in the World Bank's International Centre for the Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID) stem from the decision of former President Benigno Aquino III to cancel a contract entered into by the Macapal-Arroyo government to dredge Laguna de Bay as part of its river rehabilitation program.

The Aquino government justified the cancellation on the grounds that the contract was tainted with corruption and that the terms were unfavorable to the government, While it is debatable whether or not Aquino's actions were based on sound judgment or purely political in nature as some have opined, what is clear is that government actions, in this case the decision to terminate a contract, are open to legal challenges from corporations that could cost billions of taxpayers money.

The right of corporations to sue governments is enshrined and guaranteed in bilateral investment treaties, and new generation free trade agreements under the investor state dispute settlement mechanism or ISDS. By signing on to these agreements, our government is giving consent to these corporations to hail us to court and demand compensation for actions, policies, regulations that will be deemed detrimental to the corporate interest.

The actual amount of the award to BDZ has not yet been published as the tribunal awaits the consent from the parties, although there are reports that it can be in the range of US $800 million to US$4 billion that the corporation is demanding. The actual cost to the Philippines though will definitely be much more than this if you factor in the cost incurred in litigating the case. To argue and defend our case, the Philippine government got the legal services of the American law firm White and Case based in Washington, DC, the same firm that represented us in the Fraport case. It has been reported that the cost of litigating that case amounted to as much as US$ 58 million.

This ISDS system is clearly biased in favor of corporations. According to UNCTAD’s World Investment Report 2015, investors have won 60% of the decisions on the merits and 72% of the decisions on jurisdiction. And, these numbers do not even take into account the cases that are settled. Those should also be counted as a win for the investor since most of the time they involve a monetary compensation or a change in the legislation/regulation that triggered the case. Since only investors can initiate these lawsuits, States never win; they may – at best - not lose a case.

In the wake of the ICSID award in favor of BDZ, the Duterte government should initiate a serious process of reviewing all the bilateral investment treaties and free trade agreements that previous governments have entered into, with the view to terminate agreements that are clearly detrimental to our national interest. It should also stop on- going negotiations for new generation free trade agreements like the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement (RCEP) and the EU-Philippines FTA where ISDS provisions are being pushed.

Only then can we ensure that the governments right to regulate investments in the name of public interest can be protected. #

Joseph Purugganan
Coordinator
EU-ASEAN FTA Campaign Network josephp@focusweb.org

MAKATI CITY, Philippines – On Valentine’s Day, around 100 members of the ASEAN Civil Society Conference/ASEAN Peoples’ Forum 2017-Philippines National Organizing Committee (NOC) wearing red shirts marched to the Department of Trade and Industry (DTI) to deliver the Philippine CSOs’ position and demands on the ASEAN Economic Community (AEC). The NOC, led by its co-conveners Freedom from Debt Coalition (FDC) and PhilWomen on ASEAN, asked that its statement be tackled also at the 31^st meeting of the High Level Task Force on ASEAN Economic Integration (HLTF-EI) the following day.  A number of the groups that have been engaging DTI on trade and investment issues and free trade agreement (FTA) negotiations are also part of the ACSC/APF 2017 NOC.

A big Valentine’s card containing the CSOs’ statement was handed over to the Philippine representative to the HLTF-EI, DTI Undersecretary and official-in-charge of trade policies Ceferino Rodolfo who later invited the CSOs to a dialogue in a big meeting room at the Board of Investments. “The ACSC/APF 2017 Philippines NOC sees the Philippines Chairship of ASEAN for 2017 as a good opportunity to advance the peoples’ critique of the AEC and the current direction espoused by ASEAN’s economic integration agenda. The statement underscored, among others, the following issues: 1) Increasing inequalities and the continuing dominance of corporate power, 2) Informalization of the labor market and increasing migration concerns, 3) environmental degradation and the climate crisis, 4) peace and human security, 5) human rights and access tojustice, 6) and life with dignity. On the occasion of ASEAN’s 50^th year, it is high time for our government to integrate the people’s vision in the regional integration” declared FDC president Dr. Eduardo Tadem.

Under the AEC blueprint, ASEAN economies are expected to become a single production and market base that seeks to facilitate the free flow of goods and skilled labor. Mark Pascual, Program Officer of Asia Pacific Research Network, highlighted that the current thrust of the AEC and the wider ASEAN integration process itself is influenced by neoliberal interests affirmed by free trade agreements wherein big businesses and transnational corporations remain its main drivers and beneficiaries, thus markets and profits are prioritized over the needs and rights of the people

During the 2-hour dialogue with DTI Usec Rodolfo, the Philippine NOC tackled a wide range of issues and pressed that these urgent issues will be integrated in the discussions of the HLTF-EI. “The government should review all existing trade and investment agreements, and if necessary terminate those that do not serve the peoples’ interests,” voiced Joseph Purugganan, Coordinator of Focus on the Global South – Philippines. He explained that the rise of mega-regional trade deals such as the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP) and bilateral new generation FTAs is also a growing cause for concern owing to its impending impacts – on the country’s agricultural sector, labor rights including those of migrant workers, women, marginalized sectors, access to cheap and life-saving medicines, and on national sovereignty. AEC’s labour mobility should benefit all workers including migrant workers and not only highly skilled professionals.

“The ASEAN Regional Integration is feared to fail lest it takes into account the systemic and intersectional dimension of discrimination, oppression and exclusion,” said Chang Jordan, Program Director of Women’s Legal Bureau.  To illustrate her point, Jordan who also represents PhilWomen on ASEAN raised that the AEC’s focus on creating market conditions does not translate to women’s equal opportunity in economic and labor markets, as it refuses to acknowledge differences resulting from gender stereotyping in labor roles—the negative effects are especially intensified in poorer developing countries.

Maris Dela Cruz, coordinator of the Network for Transformative Social Protection, expressed that market liberalization, deregulation and privatization programs pursued by ASEAN have led to the loss of traditional livelihoods and means of survival, and further exploitation of workers.  The perspectives of ordinary people especially the vulnerable and marginalized aspiring for a life of dignity have not been integrated in the AEC. The challenge to our governments is to take up the notion of a Social ASEAN, not only focus on Economic ASEAN. “The Philippine Government must guarantee social protection for all and reverse the privatization of public services especially healthcare and education and instead, forge public-public partnership—state partnerships with non-profit groups like peoples’ cooperatives or social enterprises,” added Ana Vitacion, coordinator of the alliance Buhay na may Dignidad para sa Lahat (DIGNIDAD).

Raquel Castillo, Lead Convener of Sustainability and Participation through Education and Lifelong Learning (SPELL) opined, “instead of human capacity and capabilities development being geared towards addressing individual and community needs as a priority, they will increasingly be boxed in and reduced to catering to the imperatives of the regional integrating economy and big business.”

The AEC has also put considerable pressures on local and regional biodiversity and natural ecosystems resulting in rapid degradation of land, water, and forest resources. “The obsession to sustain the neoliberal economic growth model has taken its toll on the environment, widening resource inequalities and has aggravated the climate crisis in the region,” added Cipriano Fampulme of Aksyon para sa Kahandaan sa Kalamidad at Klima (AKKMA).

Chants of “Nothing about us without us!”, “ASEAN by the people, not only by the States!”, and “People over Profit!” filled the air at DTI. Civil society organizations representing various sectors in the Philippines united under the NOC of the ACSC/APF2017 aim to amplify grassroots people’s voices in asserting human rights, democratization, and economic, social and ecological justice towards a just, humane, and equitable Philippines and Southeast Asia.  

To complete the Valentine’s Day spirit, the NOC members also gave sampaguita garlands and heart-shaped balloons carrying their demands to the DTI representatives. In addition, the CSOs also handed over tubaws to the DTI officials. Both CSOs and the DTI officials agreed to have a continuing dialogue, before and after the ASEAN Summit. #

ACSC/APF2017 Philippines National Organizing Committee (NOC) Co-conveners: PhilWomen on ASEAN Network lFreedom from Debt Coalition | Members:Aksyon para sa Kahandaan sa Kalamidad at Klima lAlab KatipunanlAlmanalAsian Peoples Movement on Debt and DevelopmentlAlliance of Philippine Partners in Enterprise Development lASEAN SOGIE CaucuslAsia Pacific Network on Food Sovereigntyl SEAN Youth Leaders Association – PhilippineslAsian Federation Against Involuntary Disappearances lAsian Partnership for the Development of Human Resources in Rural Asia lAsia Pacific Research Network lArya Progresibo lAsian Solidarity Economy Council – Philippines lAssociation for the Rights of Children in Southeast Asia lAteneo Human Rights Center lASEAN Youth Forum lBagong Alyansa Nagkakaisang Gabay sa Kalamidad at Klimal Buhay na may Dignidad para sa Lahat (DIGNIDAD)lBuklod ng Manggagawa sa Radio Communication of the Philippines, Inc. – National Federation of Labor lBulig Visayas lCenter for Environmental Concerns lCenter for Energy, Ecology and Development lCenter for Migrant Advocacy lCenter for Women’s Resources lChild Rights Coalition-Asia lCivil Society Coalition on the Convention on the Rights of the Child lCoalition of the Services of the Elderly lDevelopment Alternatives with Women for a New Era lEmpower lFair Trade Foundation Panay lFoundation for Media Alternatives lFoundation for a Sustainable Society lFocus on the Global South – Philippines lGender Watch Against Violence and Exploitation lHope for the Youth lInitiatives for International Dialogue lIntegrated Rural Development Foundation lInternational Youth United lKanlungan Center Foundation lKilusan Para sa Pambansang Demokrasya lMagsasaka at Siyentipiko para sa Pag-unlad ng Agrikultura lMigrant Forum in Asia lMindanao Migrants Center for Empowering Actions lNational Movement for Food Sovereignty lNetwork for Transformative Social Protection lNational Federation of Labor lPangisda lProgresibong Alyansa ng mga Mangingisda lPartnership of Philippine Support Service Agencies lPeoples Alternative Study Center for Research and Education in Social Development lPambansang Kalipunan ng mga Manggagawang Impormal sa Pilipinas lPhilippine Alliance of Human Rights Advocates lPhilippine Network of Food Security Programmes lPhilippine Movement for Climate Justice l Rural-Urban Peoples' Linkages lSanlakas lKasarian-Kalayaan lSave the Children – Philippines l Sustainability and Participation through Education and Lifelong Learning lStrengthening Alliance of Victims for Empowerment from Disaster (SAVED) RIZAL lSentro ng mga Nagkakaisa at Progresibong Manggagawa lTebtebba lUnang Hakbang Foundation lWomanHealth Philippines lWorld Council for Curriculum and Instruction lWomen's Legal and Human Rights Bureau

Focus on the Global South – Philippines joined human rights advocates and other civil society organizations in the country, as well as from other parts of the globe who have expressed support for the campaign, in resisting the death penalty bill via a picket held on Valentine's day at the South Gate of the House of Representatives where lawmakers entered and exited in their posh cars. The action was led by the broad coalition of organizations defending human rights, the iDefend (In Defense of Human Rights and Dignity). The bill, the first under this Congress, is now being deliberated in the Lower House. The passage into law of what CSOs now call ‘death bill’ is impending; the majority coalition, composed of the supporters and allies of President Duterte, has ensured its speedy deliberation, beginning in the hearings at the committee level last year to the plenary discussions more recently.  House Speaker Pantaleon Alvarez from a district in Davao province has even indicated that congressional committee heads who shall not vote in favor of the bill would be replaced in their positions.

The re-imposition of capital punishment, which was abolished through RA 9346 in 2006, was a campaign promise of Mr. Duterte whose underlying policy now is embodied in his favorite expression Patayin ko kayong lahat (I shall kill you all), with the ‘you’ referring to drug users and other criminals, and even to his enemies, said Focus on the Global South in a solidarity statement.

Studies citing global trends, including those conducted by the United Nations, have shown that the death penalty has never been a major deterrent to the commission of crimes.  Yet despite the statistics on this, many Asian countries have re-imposed death penalty in recent years. According to The Jakarta Post, Asean countries such as Indonesia, Singapore, Malaysia, together with others that are from other sub-regions of Asia, such as China, have death penalties especially aimed at offenses related to illegal drug use. Indonesia re-imposed it in 2013 after a five-year moratorium. The life of Filipina overseas worker Mary Jane Veloso, accused of trafficking drug in Indonesia, continues to hang in the balance even with a stay in her execution in 2015. In Malaysia, despite a death penalty law, demand for and use of illegal drug has not been dramatically abated, noted the The Jakarta Post.

President Duterte himself has acknowledged in one of his speeches that capital punishment is not for deterring crimes or criminality, but for “retribution.”

"This concept of eye for-an-eye instead of restorative justice no longer has a place in our civilized world, especially in a country like the Philippines where the judicial system is far from being efficient," Focus also cited in its statement.

Focus is calling on elected legislators to not play politics with the life of its citizens, especially the poor who couldn’t often afford to pay for legal defense and thus risk of being unjustly meted with the capital punishment which has happened in the past; and to instead institute just, rehabilitative measures for wrongdoings. It has also urged the public to support the campaign against the death bill and uphold human rights; life with dignity. iDefend has branded the bill as anti-poor, just like Duterte's war on drugs.#

TRADE JUSTICE PILIPINAS

c/o Focus on the Global South. 19 Maginhawa Street, UP Village, Diliman, Quezon City. +6323552578

at dti_0.jpg

Workers from SENTRO and Partido ng Manggagawa (PM) picketed the DTI Office in Cebu Friday as the second round of negotiations for EU-Philippines free trade agreement were winding down. Photo courtesy of SENTRO-Cebu

As the second round of negotiations for an ambitious and comprehensive free trade and investment agreement between the European Union and the Philippines is underway in Cebu City, Philippines from February 13-17, Trade Justice-Pilipinas, a newly convened broad platform campaigning for alternative trade and investment policies, is calling on the Duterte government to desist from negotiating a trade agreement that is biased in favor of the corporate interest and will threaten peoples rights and welfare.

Trade Justice Pilipinas raises its serious concerns over this corporate deal that favors the interest of corporations over people and the environment.

Launched in December 2015, the EU-Philippines FTA is a new generation free trade agreement that will lock-in the country to economic policies that will have far reaching implications on peoples rights and welfare and gives primacy to corporate interests over peoples needs.

The chapter on intellectual property rights will extend patent on medicines. The provision on data protection will provide further protection to patent holders by putting in place new requirements that will restrict the Food and Drug Administration from issuing marketing authorization for new versions of the drug. This chapter will threaten public health and peoples access to affordable medicines, undermining our Cheaper Medicines Law.

The chapter on investments will give corporations the right to sue the government over policies and regulations.  Under the infamous Investor State Dispute Settlement Mechanism or ISDS, corporations are given the power to take legal action against the State in private and exclusive investment arbitration courts. Movements have heavily criticized the ISDS provision across the EU as one of the elements of the toxic deal between EU and the United States. It has been roundly rejected by 97% of respondents in a public consultation conducted by the European Commission (EC) itself.

The EU has advanced a so-called reformed ISDS in the EU-Philippines FTA talks called Investor Court System or ICS, supposedly addressing the concerns over ISDS. But ICS is wolf in sheep’s clothing. The fundamental issues raised against ISDS remain a concern under ICS. European groups who have analyzed the reformulated ISDS have seen that the EU proposal will perpetuate investors’ attacks on health and environment.

The agreement will also provide explicit consent to the submission of a claim by corporations under investment arbitration tribunals. The recent investment arbitral decision on the Baggerwerken Decloedt En Zoon (BDZ) versus the Philippines case in favor of the Belgian corporation should be a wake up call to the Duterte administration on the dangers posed by free trade and investment agreements to our national interest.  The International Center for the Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID) has ordered the Philippine government to pay P800 million (US$17 million) to the Belgian dredging company for scrapping the P18.7-billion Laguna Lake Rehabilitation Project (LLRP) in 2011. Aside from the award granted to winning claims, losing parties are also obliged under these agreements to shoulder the legal costs of both parties.  In the Fraport case for example, it has been reported that the Philippine government spent US$58 million for litigation. These agreements therefore represent a huge strain on public coffers and on taxpayer’s money.

The EU-Philippines FTA is in the mold of other new generation agreements that have provisions that prohibit performance requirements, such as policies on domestic content and export restrictions, policies that favor employment of Filipinos over foreign workers or even those that push for technology transfer. This represents an erosion of the power of governments to use economic policies to advance its national development goals.

The suspension and closure of mining operations in the country led by the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) is a bright spot in the efforts of the government to ensure the primacy of peoples’ rights over corporate profits. But these actions will be seriously undermined by this agreement that the Duterte government is pursuing with the EU. Already, mining companies have threatened to sue over these regulatory actions by the government, and the FTA with the EU will further expose us to more million-dollar claims by transnational corporations. This FTA is anathema to the Duterte government’s push for responsible mining. 

Lastly on the issue of trade and human rights, the continuation of the trade talks amidst the growing issues of human rights violations in the Philippines is clear indication that both parties in the negotiating table- Philippine government and EU are willing to set aside these issues in favor of commerce. In other words trade trumps human rights.#

Contact:

Joseph Purugganan

Co-convenor

Trade Justice-Pilipinas

josephp@focusweb.org

+639228299450