Editorial
Evangelising
the Political Process
It’s Lent, a time when Christians reflect about solidarity with the poor
and how to reduce poverty in our world. But we are not alone! The WSSD, GATS,
TRIPS, PRSPs, NEPAD, HIPC, the World Water Forum, just to mention a few, all
claim to have poverty eradication high on their agenda. All send the message message: The solution
to world poverty is a matter of economy and of implementing the right
(neo-liberal market) policies.
The social teaching of our Church however, reminds us that poverty is
not an economic, but first and foremost, a moral issue! The Christian faith
holds that the right of every person (and indeed of the whole of creation) to
be treated with dignity is not a right granted by an international organisation
or government, but a gift from God to his creation!
Guided by the principles of our church’s social teaching we are
therefore called, as Christians and as citizens, to contribute positively in
elaborating the policies that will regulate our societies.
In recent years, consultation with civil society has become a must
in preparing national and international development policies and
programmes. Though the quality of such
participation is often still far from what it should be, the principle that
people affected by policies must be involved in the process of policy making,
seems generally accepted.
For many years, religious and missionaries have contributed to empower
civil society. But as international financial institutions and complex
international trade agreements increasingly regulated national economies, we
tend to back away from global economic policy issues. Yet those international
policies do, and will, impact on people at the grassroots!
We cannot just stand back and watch how the poor are victimised by the
greed of a few! Through analyses of economic policies that harm Africa and the
actions proposed, our AEFJN network can help your community too take its place
among civil society groups in the struggle against
poverty. It is one way to evangelise our economic policies and to beat
poverty! A graceful Easter to all!
Luc Coppejans,
MAfr
CONTROLLING SMALL ARMS BROKERS IN
EUROPE
a European Campaign
25% of the
world’s arms export comes from the European Union. France and the UK compete for 3rd place, preceded only
by Russia and the USA. To be sure,
Germany, Spain, Italy or Belgium also have important stakes in this industry.
Even if the European
Code of Conduct for Trade in Arms (see: www.obsarm.org)
regulates arms transfers hailing from the EU to some extent, the control of the
activities of brokers, transporters and banks involved in arms transfers needs
to be reinforced. Presently, the national legislations of EU member states only
bind intermediaries in arms transfers, when the arms actually transit their own
country. Thus a German arms broker who
signs a deal with an African rebel group in a hotel in Brussels concerning a
lot of arms in Poland, is not subjected to Belgian legislation.
A European
coalition of NGOs working on trade in small arms (in which AEFJN takes part)
has embarked on a campaign from December 2002 till June 2003. The NGOs ask that the European Union
harmonise national legislations on the activities of brokers, transporters and
banks. In this way the intermediaries in arms deals could be held liable
anywhere within the EU for their participation in arms transfers that do not
abide by the criteria of the European Code of Conduct.
While very
necessary, this campaign must be seen in a wider context. Several EU countries
do have national legislations that are equally (e.g. Belgium) or even more
demanding than the Code (e.g. Italy, UK).
Indeed, the European Code is only the “lowest common denominator” for
regulation of trade in arms between the EU and Africa.
There is a
growing consensus among NGOs and, in some instances, governments that a
globally binding arms trade treaty is needed. Such a Convention on
International Arms Transfers would be based on both the EU Code and the
proposals made in April 2001 by a group of Nobel Peace laureates, and would
include human rights standards, respect for humanitarian law, respect for
international arms embargoes and participation in the UN Register of
Conventional Arms (see: www.arias.or.cr/fundarias/cpr/code.htm
).
While AEFJN
encourages members to participate in the action to harmonise European
legislation on brokering, lobby efforts in the coming months will also focus on
creating enough energy among the EU member states for an international treaty,
which could be discussed later this summer at the review of the 2001 UN
Conference on the Illicit Trade in Arms.
Be ready and be
on the lookout! Things are moving fast on the issue of controlling arms trade.
Maybe it is a good idea to revisit the AEFJN 2000 working paper Trade in
Small Arms between Europe and Africa (www.aefjn.org)!
European Antennae of AEFJN joined the European
campaign for more control on brokering in small arms. Your group too can do so!
Contact your AEFJN antenna, your JPIC coordinator or for more
information surf to: www.agirci.org or www.arms-control.org to sign up!
____________________________
CHILD SOLDIERS
1st Anniversary of Optional Protocol
Since January
2003 the UN and Amnesty International reported active recruitment of youths
around Benitu and Khartoum, Sudan by southern militias allied to the
government; in Côte d’Ivoire government forces would have recruited 3000
youngsters, while opposition forces have enrolled many more, some from
neighbouring countries; in Congo DR, where agencies estimate that 30.000
child soldiers are enrolled by various sides, the UN mission reported
widespread recruitment of children by the UPC/RP of Thomas Lubanga.
The good news is
that the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) has proposed
a plan for cross-border initiatives aimed at reducing the recruitment of
children and strengthening the child protection unit of ECOWAS. And in Southern
and Eastern Africa, governments have agreed to a number of political and legal
protocols on small arms control (www.saferworld.org.uk
).
Meanwhile, 12th
February 2003 marked the first anniversary of the entry into force of the Optional
Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child on the involvement of
children in armed conflict, banning the enrolment of youths under 18 into
armed forces. As of end February 2003,
111 states had signed the protocol, but only 50 had made it legally binding in
their own countries. In the European
Union the UK, the Netherlands, Portugal, Germany, Luxemburg and Sweden have not
yet ratified this protocol. In Africa, DR Congo, Kenya, Mali, Morocco, Namibia,
Rwanda, Sierra Leone, Uganda and Tunisia ratified! (for more info see: www.child-soldiers.org)
AEFJN campaigned for the acceptance of the protocol
in 2000 and 2001. If your government has not yet ratified, urge it to sign and
ratify the Optional Protocol to the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child
concerning children and armed conflict, without reservations and ensure that
the minimum age of 18 for all forms of military recruitment is implemented in
your national legislation!
A
watery declaration at the Kyoto World Water Forum
With 165
countries represented at the World Water Forum in Kyoto, all was set to
work out a list of concrete actions to reduce by half the number of people who
have no access to drinking water by 2015.
However, the only
real new positive point in the declaration is the agreement to implement the
UNESCO proposal to establish a body for conflict resolution for water disputes
between countries.
“Six months after Johannesburg, we have the
impression we have made no progress!” said Attaher Ag Mohamed, senior advisor
on water issues in Mali. The minister
of Lesotho summarised the final declaration saying: “The declaration uses the
word should where the word shall would have been appropriate”.
Knowing that the
Forum is driven by a sophisticated campaign, dominated by the World Bank and
some of the world’s largest water corporations (e.g. Suez and Evian), to
establish global consensus on an enhanced role for the private sector in water
management, nobody was really surprised of the outcome of the Kyoto Forum. The former director of the IMF (and
councillor to the Pontifical J&P Commission!), Mr Michel Camdessus,
proposed more private investment and participation in the water sector. This proposal was rejected by NGOs who
argued that this “blueprint” for global water corporations to profit from water
systems through a market model will do nothing to improve access to quality
water in developing countries. The suggestion of the NGOs that access to
drinking water is a human right, as the UN stated last November, was ignored.
225 NGOs present
in Kyoto to defend water as a common good and a right, issued a
separate declaration. They declared water to be a human right and demanded a
re-evaluation of water policies from the perspective of social justice and
environmental sustainability. (read the declaration www.blueplanetproject.net)
At the same time,
civil society groups gathered in Florence (Italy) held an alternative Social
Water Forum. They worked out an
action plan and committed to the installation of community based water
distribution systems in 7 African countries.
Our AEFJN
antennae and many of our member congregations appealed to their government
delegations not to accept the notion that water as a commodity for sale, but
recognize water as a common good and that access to water is a human
right. Thank you for standing up for
what you believe to be the right of the poor!
AEFJN
members are invited to continue the action in May, targeting the EU and
Africa Group-delegations at the WTO negotiations, to ask that they ensure
that citizens can exercise their right to water and that there be universal
exemptions for domestic water and sanitation services from the TRIPS Agreement.
(see: AP2003
“Water for All!” and UPDATE March 2003 on www.aefjn.org
Did the African Model Law die?
Patents on seeds and traditional knowledge in Africa
Throughout 2002,
AEFJN members campaigned hard to ask the European Union and the WTO to admit
the African Union’s (the former OAU) African Model Legislation (AML) as
an acceptable model of intellectual property regulation.
The AML,
endorsed by the OAU in Ouagadougou in 1998, intends to assist African states in
their effort to develop and implement national legislation on patents in a way
capable of satisfying their conflicting obligations under the WTO Agreement
on Trade Related Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) and the UN
Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD).
The AML
recognizes that local communities are custodians of their indigenous biological
resources, innovations, practices and knowledge. It defends the smallholder
farmers’ right to save, use and exchange seed produced on their farms and to
use protected seed varieties in the development of new farmer varieties. The
AML also rules that the use of traditional knowledge and bio-resources for
commercialisation can only be allowed with informed prior consent of the local
community and that benefit sharing with the community must be discussed.
Unfortunately, 15
Francophone countries, members of the West African Intellectual Property
Organisation (OAPI), have signed on to the European model law (UPOV) which
allows companies or individuals to patent biological resources and traditional
knowledge and makes it mandatory to start patenting life forms.
In most other
African countries, however, there is still scope to encourage national
governments and parliaments to accept the African Model Law as a basis for
national IPR legislation.
Indeed, recently
the African Group of countries at the WTO started a “No Patents on Life”
campaign. While accepting the benefits of biotechnology, the African countries
defend their longstanding argument that the bio-resources in Africa are a
common good and therefore cannot be considered as a private property nor be
used for private profit-making purposes.
This campaign
forces the EU to serve clear wine after news reports last February let it be
understood that the EU had tabled proposals to stop bio-piracy, curb the power
of the industry and protect the rights of farmers.
In fact, the EU
strongly opposes the Africa Group’s position. It does not want to oblige patent
seekers to disclose the origin of their find, nor provide proof of prior
consent of the community of origin. The EU also argues that before exemptions
for small farmers can be discussed, African countries must first adopt
UPOV-type laws. Finally, the EU refuses to consider the proposed ban on patents
on living organisms. (GRAIN’s Open
Letter to Lamy 26.02.03 at www.grain.org).
The fight is on once again! AEFJN members could
revisit our 2002 paper: “Equitable Intellectual Property Rights for
Africa” (www.aefjn.org) and contact local
groups of civil society in order to support the position of African countries.
___________________________
Access to Essential Medicines
endangered again?
Production,
purchase and marketing of both old and new medicines are protected by national
patent legislations that are regulated by WTO standards. This means that needed
drugs are often too expensive and cannot be purchased elsewhere. For years, African countries demanded the
right to overrule patents in order to have access to essential drugs. The WTO 2001 Doha Declaration on Public
Health granted them this possibility.
Recent
developments at the WTO negotiations on the Agreement on Trade
Related Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPs) show that the Declaration is
being undermined. The EU proposed to
limit the number of diseases covered under the Declaration to 23 infectious
epidemics believed to “have the most damaging impact on developing countries”,
while the US would list only HIV/AIDS, malaria and tuberculosis or infectious
epidemics of comparable scale and gravity.
The EU proposal
also suggested that future appeals to expand the list for diseases, for which
developing countries do not have production capacity, be submitted to the World
Health Organization (WHO), which would assess whether or not a disease has
reached such proportions as to warrant an exemption from patent rules. This
would mean that developing countries would have to wait for a health problem to
become “uncontrollable” before they could appeal to the WHO to recommend
that the WTO give its permission to purchase the medicines needed.
African countries
at the WTO denounce the limitations on how, when and to what extent developing
countries can define their “public
health emergencies.” Since the
renegotiations on TRIPs started in 2000, African countries have pushed for more
flexibility in their ability to issue compulsory licenses (i.e. the exception
under TRIPs that allows governments to grant a production license to a local
company for patented drugs) and in their ability to issue parallel licenses
(i.e. a similar exception which allows countries to buy a patented drug at a
cheaper price in another country). But
resistance among the African group on these issues is wavering as the pressure
from the US, the EU and from South Africa mounts.
NGOs, call on
civil society groups everywhere to encourage their governments to reject the
proposals of the EU and the US, and to support the position of the African
Group that wants to keep to the original text of the Doha Declaration which states
that: Each member country has the right to grant compulsory licenses and the
freedom to determined the grounds upon which such licenses are granted.
AEFJN member congregations, antennae, Justice and Peace
groups, and the Church’s medical personnel should join civil society to
send a strong message to their leaders: The original intent embodied in
the Doha Declaration must be secured: access to medicines for all! For more
information see AEFJN paper 2001 “The Impact of Global
Trade on African Economies”.
West African cotton producers accuse
EU of dumping
In November 2001,
some members in Burkina Faso drew the attention of AEFJN on the crash of the
price for cotton on the world market. The French AEFJN antenna championed the
cause of the cotton farmers in Burkina Faso, Mali and Benin and has
persistently campaigned to eliminate the subsidies to cotton producers in the
EU (Spain and Greece) and the USA (the first exporter of cotton).
In the European
Union, subsidies for cotton amount to € 0,60 for a pound, while US
cotton-farmers receive $ 0,52 for every pound produced. Such subsidies
artificially increase the offer of cotton on the world market. Thus, while in
December 2000 the price of cotton was € 1.525 per ton, by June 2002 the price
had fallen to € 697 per ton!
The logic of free
market economy is to cut subsidies to production so as to avoid over production
and stabilise market prices. Yet the EU and US, the defenders par
excellence of free trade, keep subsidies high on their agenda for obvious
political reasons. If they would stop subsidies, their cotton productions would
fall, and the farmers’ lobbies are strong! On the other hand, cutting subsidies
in the EU and the US would allow West African cotton to be competitive on the
world market and would secure the livelihood of 10 million West Africans who
depend directly and indirectly on cotton production.
Asked about this
dumping practice, the Commission played down the EU responsibility saying that
European cotton represents only 2% of world market, but that reducing subsidies
to agriculture figures high on the agenda of the revision of the European
Common Agricultural Policy (CAP). They further contend that under the
“Everything but Arms” programme, African cotton can be freely imported into the
EU without any custom duty.
The case of West
African cotton shows how EU economic policies often contradict the EU rhetoric
about promoting sustainable development in African countries. European cotton is only 2% of the world market;
West African cotton represents 13%! In West Africa 2 million farmers depend on
cotton; in the EU only a handful of farmers in Spain and Greece would be
affected! Reason would favour West African farmers. But politically, cutting
subsidies to European cotton farmers has been a “no go” area. Since January
2002 the presidency of the European Union was held by Spain, Denmark and
Greece. Spain and Greece would not push for measures that would harm their
cotton farmers. Denmark, also a country
with an important agricultural economy, was not in any hurry to initiate the
implementation of the WTO ministerial conference of Doha in 2001, where the
European Union agreed (reluctantly) to gradually face out its subsidies to the
agricultural sector.
The renegotiation
of the European Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) is underway and cutting
subsidies to farmers is on the agenda!
An NGO platform (Action Aid, CIDSE, Oxfam, Solagral, Solidar, a.o.)
wrote on March 17th an open letter to the EU Agriculture Ministers
to use the revision of the CAP to reduce overproduction, ban export subsidies
and dumping. African countries on their
part set up last September the African Cotton Association to attack
together the “disloyal practices” in international cotton trade.
Members in Burkina Faso and France have done a great
job in bringing the plight of the African cotton farmers to the world’s
attention.
Now is the time for all our member congregations and
antennae, both in Africa and Europe, to join the campaign in defence of the
small farmers, and to ask our governments to stop subsidizing cotton
production.
(for some more information see: www.abcburkina.net/index.php and also www.globenet.org/reseau-solidarite/actions/action243_e.htm)
_____________________________
Privatise Public Services?
Why Africa is suspicious of GATS
For the European
Union and the WTO the only realistic solution to the lack of state
capital investment, capacity and know-how needed to ensure quality access to
basic services in Africa is the liberalization of international trade in
services (such as health or education services, postal or transportation
services or water and sanitation services).
They also say
that the General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS) only concerns trade
in services. States, they claim, retain the full freedom to impose the
regulation they see fit, and to decide whether services should be managed by
public bodies or by private companies.
But African countries and many civil society groups, academics, trade
unions and politicians are suspicious of GATS and of further liberalisation of
their public services.
1. The poor loose
out
Statistics in a number
of African countries show that privatisation of public water, electricity,
housing, education and health services has increased overall access and
effectiveness. However the experience at the grassroots shows that
privatisation measures undermine equal and affordable access for the poor who
cannot afford to pay market prices for these services. Many in Africa, as anywhere else in the
world, claim that treating services such as water distribution, housing, health
or education in the same way as economic services such as telecommunications or
banking services, is denying the right to basic services to the 30% of Africa’s
population who live with an income equal or under their national Poverty Line.
2. Coerced into
privatising
African countries
also resent the way the World Bank and IMF loan policies make them easy legal
targets for the EU’s drive to gain access for European multinational service
providers.
To secure a
higher rate of return for possible investors in Africa, the World Bank has
granted loans to Angola, Benin, Guinea, Niger, Rwanda, Senegal, Zambia, Ghana
and Cameroon on the condition that their governments accept and implement full
cost recovery, fee calculations linked to the US dollar, or that they use the
loans for investing in market friendly rehabilitation of service
infrastructures.
The result is
that, though they did not yet privatise their public services, many African
governments are forced to supply these services on an increasingly commercial
basis. As a result, many African governments’ social services are disqualified
from the exemption under GATS rules, which states that the only services for
which foreign companies cannot contend are “services supplied in the exercise
of governmental authority… which are supplied neither on a commercial basis,
nor in competition with one or more service suppliers.” The EU has exploited
this situation by targeting Botswana, Kenya, Lesotho, Madagascar, Mauritius,
Mozambique, Namibia, Nigeria, Senegal, South Africa, Tanzania and Zimbabwe and demanding
that they open negotiations on access to their water service sector under GATS
(see list: www.urfig.org ).
3. Fear to lose
freedom to regulate
Many African
governments also fear that opening their public services markets to foreign
competitors under GATS regulations will limit their ability to protect their
young industries from competition from powerful multi-national corporations.
They also fear that GATS will hamper their freedom to regulate possible unlawful
or dangerous business practices by strong multinational service suppliers.
4. No time to
study the impact
African
governments are also reluctant because of the GATS negotiation calendar.
Negotiations between the EU and the countries from which it has asked access to
service markets have to be finished by December 2003! While African countries
can list restrictions on whatever service they want to liberalise, it is
unlikely that they will have had enough the time to study the impact of
liberalisation of their services, so as to identify the correct restrictions to
ask for.
5. Once in, no
way out
Finally, when the
renegotiated GATS agreement will be in force in 2005, African countries will
not be able to de-list a service for three years, then be obliged to give a
three months notice and to pay the concerned company compensation.
AEFJN encourages members to join other civil society
groups in their countries to ask during the month of May that GATS negotiations
be suspended to allow for assessment of the effects of liberalising trade in
services; that the World Bank and the IMF withdraw their demands for African
countries to introduce measures that lead towards privatisation; and that the
EU recognizes that essential services such as water, electricity and housing
are public goods that cannot be put up for sale. (For more
information on this action, contact your AEFJN antenna or JPIC coordinator)
Access
to information for all ?
Last February in
Geneva the Swiss AEFJN Antenna attended the second preparatory conference for
the World Summit on the Information Society, scheduled to take place
next December in Geneva and in Tunis in 2005.
Regional conferences, like the one for Africa in Bamako, Mali last May,
had prepared the Geneva meeting.
The aim of the World
Summit is to outline the principles that will guide the global information
society. Delegates from some 100 countries drew up a first draft of such a
declaration and a plan of action that would be adopted at the Summit in Geneva
and Tunis.
Mr. Adama Samassekou,
the Malian president of the committee, stressed that the Information Society must
provide for everybody, without distinction, the means to create, receive, share
and use information and knowledge for his/her economic, social, cultural and
political development.
But the
challenges are enormous. Only half of the world population has access to a
telephone, many are still illiterate and 80% of the world population has no
access to means of internet communication and information.
Another
challenge, especially brought forward by civil society, is how to guarantee
people their right to information and free expression.
The communication
industry sees huge potential markets for its products. If information becomes just a commercial
commodity, high costs for information, infrastructure and technologies may once
again make the poor dependent on those who can pay, opening the danger of
leaving the content of information under the control of governments or
commercial monopolies.
The World Summit
must assure that information remains at the service of the common good and does
not just join the other “commodities” that are negotiable at the WTO, such as
Intellectual Property (seeds and medicines) or Public Services (water,
education or health). For more information
consult www.itu.int/wsis.
_______________________
News from around the network
ITALY
The Italian
group, after a time of slow going, is up and going. 12 congregations and a lay
group are members. In January they were very instrumental in organising a
demonstration against the plan of the government to dilute the law on trade in
arms (one of the strongest ones in the EU!). They also joined the Social Water
Forum at Florence.
FRANCE
Change of guard:
George Riffault handed over the animation of the antennae to Annie Girard. George remains the contact person for the
European arms campaign for which the French coalition is the lead group. Nice are also the frequent actions they have
to support specific demands from African countries!
IRELAND
The 3 working
groups of the antennae: Debt, Arms Trade and Food Security have all been busy.
But as a national antennae issue they did some work on fisheries, as the Irish
“Atlantic Dawn” (the world’s biggest fishing vessel) was busy off the coast of
Mauritania.
SPAIN
For some time
now, a new antenna is at work in Barcelona. They work closely with Madrid.
Issues they are involved in are spirituality, arms trade, GATS and water.
PORTUGAL
After a successful
campaign last year on arms trade, the antenna is now going strong on the water
campaign. Here again, we want to thank
them for the great job they do in translating AEFJN documents in Portuguese,
so people in Mozambique and Angola can have our information.
UK
Members have been
very active lobbying the commons on the issue of GATS and especially the water
issue. We recommend their monthly
“Action Sheet” that is a great example of how to involve our communities for
our actions.
GERMANY
Bonn is
coordinator for the European Arms campaign in Germany (DAKS), but the Berlin
office was very active producing a 17pg document for the parliament to lobby
for our water campaign. As national issue they work on AIDS/HIV and on the debt
arbitration issue. They also do a good job with their website which gives
information of Africa and Justice matters.
NETHERLANDS
Members have been
busy on the water issue and are already looking at the Cancun meeting of the
WTO next summer!
SWITZERLAND
While our antenna
keeps for us contact with the WTO in Geneva, their action focuses this year on
the issue of water and of Intellectual Property Rights on sees and medicines.
KENYA
The antenna takes
slowly but surely shape. They have had a few meetings now narrowing down the
issues they want to work on. Privatisation of water, dumping of agricultural
goods and the impact of WTO on agriculture seem to emerge, for a national issue
they may address the question of land distribution.
BURKINA
Members in
Burkina have been for 2 years denouncing the subsidies to the US and EU cotton
producers a measure that harms West African cotton farmers. There is also an
effort to save at least some aspects of the AML in local legislation to protect
farmers’ rights.
BRUSSELS
SECRETARIAT
A new staff
person joins the team. This allows us to reorganise our work. Maru and Marnie
will be lobby officers at the EU institutions and for NGO networking, one for
GATS/TRIPS, the other for ACP-EU/debt issues. Luc will follow up ongoing
campaigns and take on the internal networking of AEFJN. Over the last months
our main efforts went into the European arms campaign, preparing a possible
European debt campaign, work on the issue of access to medicines and on the
issue of the privatisation of water and sanitation services.
________________________
