CUTS-CITEE Campaign on Linkages: Linkages-Update-No4.htm

The collapse of the UN climate talks in The Hague has plunged the international efforts to curb global warming into a state of confusion. The dramatic results are a real disaster for efforts to cleanup the planet’s atmosphere and protect poorer nations from devastating storms and floods. Many small island nations will just disappear from the world’s maps!

The principal reason for the collapse was of course failure of the European Union (EU) and the United States (US) to settle a bitter row over ways to stop global warming. Instead of ratifying the Kyoto Protocol and going on to lowering emissions, the rich countries at the Hague conference have been more occupied with squabbling about which instruments are best suited for a reduction of emissions. The Kyoto Protocol agreed in 1997, is a so called framework agreement under which 38 rich and big countries would cut their greenhouse gas emissions by slightly more than 5% by 2012.

The EU threw down the gauntlet to the US accusing Washington of being the biggest single culprit for global warming and challenging it to “join” the fight against the peril. Speaking on the occasion the French President Jacques Chirac, whose country is also the current chair of the EU, pointed the finger at the US for its lavish consumption of fossil fuels. He said that the US alone produces a quarter of the World’s emissions. Each American emits three times more greenhouse gases than a Frenchman.

The EU also accused Japan along with the US, Canada, New Zealand and Australia of trying to undermine the Kyoto Protocol by pressing for rules that would allow them to fulfil targets as cheaply as possible, while permitting them to increase their carbon dioxide emissions. The US and some other countries were insisting on inclusion of rules for obtaining credits for improving “sinks” i.e. by planting new trees to absorb carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and thus offsetting emissions.

Whatever may the arguments and counter-arguments but the differences between the EU and the US, with the third world aghast on the sidelines, have meant that only negligible progress has been made.

Pradeep S. Mehta

Secretary General

_________________________________________________________________

I GLOBAL PROGRAMME ON LINKAGES

CUTS-CITEE Research Study

DPGs, Toxic Waste and Technology Transfer: Issues and Developments

(‘First draft for comments’ available)

The study covers one of the most unaffiliated environmental issues discussed in the international political arena, the growth in uncontrolled trans-boundary movements of domestically prohibited goods (DPGs), hazardous wastes and dirty technologies. It highlights concerns about the rich, industrialised countries exporting or dumping such substances and technologies to the poor, developing countries that are not capable of disposing off or recycling these substances safely and protecting their people from health and environmental hazards.

This study attempts to analyse the rubric of DPGs, toxic waste and transfer of technology, and presents incidences of irreverent practices. From the analysis of the push and pull factors drawn from international experiences and various case studies, it can be observed that up to certain extent, developing countries are also responsible for the situation. However the push factors are more significant. As if to clap, one needs two hands, both the rich and the poor are playing their roles on the stage. The rich are guided by the Not-in-my-backyard (NIMBY) syndrome, while the poor by the Welcome-in-my-backyard (WIMBY) syndrome. Upto some extent, the WIMBY syndrome can be sympathised with, as the poor will chose poison over starvation, because the impact of poison is slow and less cruel. Starvation can add to immiserisation, and lead to an indignified death.

The study also throws light on the shifting of dirty industries from the rich to the poor countries. In developed countries, almost all the dirty industries such as: leather, paper, pharmaceuticals, ship-breaking, colours and dyes manufacturing have been forced to close or to move to developing countries. The latter option is no solution. It is only shifting the burden to lesser-known corners of the planet. There is no relief to the degrading environment of the planet. Moreover, these industries have shifted to the less developed and comparatively poor countries where working conditions are extremely poor and generally there is no knowledge about the ill effects of pollution and safety measures.

Some of the major recommendations of the report are:

1. The waste generators should be held responsible for its safe disposal, in accordance with the Polluter Pays Principle. At no cost should they be allowed to get rid of it by exporting to other countries.

2. The Basel Ban should be ratified immediately. This would, at least for the time being, save the people in poor countries from health and environmental hazards because there is a high risk of not constituting environmentally sound management of hazardous wastes as required by the Convention in developing countries.

3. There should be information sharing on DPGs among developing and developed countries. In this respect, the issue of export of domestically prohibited goods should be a priority item on the agenda of the UNEP-UNCTAD Capacity Building Task Force on Trade, Environment and Development.

4. The idea of creation of a “Southern” technology bank is one possible way to ensure transfer of ESTs to developing countries. In these banks, technologies could be banked and “lent” on preferential and non-commercial terms. However, such banks should get sufficient funding support from financial mechanisms such as the GEF.

5. Most of the industrialised countries have potential to fulfill the role of global leadership on environmental issues. They have the capacity and resources to show the world the path of development in harmony with environment. They should realise it and lead the rest of the world on the path of sustainable development.

II NEWS ROUND UP

1. Disturbing under Gore and comforting under Bush: Bhagwati

The Democratic and Republican presidential candidates in the US have expressed many different views on trade policy. With regard to labour and environment standards, the question of whether or not to include labour standards and environmental safeguards in future trade agreements has emerged as the defining difference on trade policy between the Democratic nominee Al Gore and Republican candidate George W. Bush.

Gore has promised to sign only deals that include labour and environmental provisions, while Bush prefers to keep the issues separate. According to noted economist Prof. Jagdish Bhagwati, "the outcome of the election has huge implications--disturbing under Mr. Gore and comforting under Mr. Bush--for trade liberalisation and the trading system." US Trade Representative Charlene Barshefsky, however, doubts that US trade policy would change much, regardless of who wins the White House. "That's because it is a bipartisan effort and because the direction the country needs to take on trade is so clear. This is not rocket science. We have to be able to expand foreign markets and have ready access to those markets." (Source: BRIDGES Weekly Trade News Digest)

2. Concerns over environment, labour stall APEC talks

After Pacific Rim nations agreed to push for new global trade talks on 14^th November, officials found themselves squabbling over the same issues, the environment and labor standards, which wrecked the last effort to launch WTO negotiations.

Thailand's deputy prime minister and WTO DG-designate, Supachai Panitchpakdi, insisted on fresh talks at the WTO must steer clear of environmental and workers' rights issues, which the Third World says would destroy its ability to exploit key economic advantages: natural resources and cheap labor.

U.S. Trade Representative Charlene Barshefsky countered that the next U.S. Congress would be unlikely to act on any trade deal that excludes the issues held dear by labour unions and environmentalists, who contend developing nations are competing unfairly when they pollute the environment and treat workers badly to produce goods at low cost.

"For the really controversial issues of non-trade items, like environment and labor, I would suggest we go around them very cautiously. I don't think we should have them in the negotiations,” Supachai said, on the sidelines of the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation forum. (Source: Associated Press, Corporate Europe Observatory (CEO), Netherlands)

3. More than 400,000 children illegally employed in Italy

More than 400,000 children between the ages of 11 and 14 work in coffee shops and construction sites among other places in Italy despite laws stating they should be in school, a trade union report revealed.

The report based on a two-year survey showed that 47% of the children are employed by coffee shops or restaurants, 15% by gas stations or as car park staff and 17% as hawkers, according to the CGIL federation report which is to be officially published soon.

Another 10% were said to work as unskilled workers, masons, plumbers or electricians on construction sites. “It is easy to see children work in Brazil, Nepal or in the Philippines and it is still easier to see them in India and Bangladesh,” the daily newspaper La Republica commented on the report. “But it is not hard either to find them close to us.” Child labour is rampant in economically depressed southern Italy but many children are also found working in the more affluent northeast of the country.

The figures drew a bitter reaction by the head of the CGIL Institute for Social Research, Agostino Megale, who rapped Italian legislators for failing to vote a law, sitting in parliament, that would impose product labels guaranteeing that no child labour was involved in the manufacture. (Source: Child Labour News Service, November 15, 2000)

4. Unprecedented action against forced labour in Myanmar

Measures to compel the Government of Myanmar to meet its obligations to eliminate forced labour in the country will go forward, following deliberations by the International Labour Organisation’s (ILO) Governing Body at its 279th session which concluded on 17 November 2000.

The ILO effectively opened the way for the full implementation of a resolution of the International Labour Conference, adopted in June of this year, aimed at compelling the Government of Myanmar to comply with Convention No. 29 on forced labour. Burma had ratified this Convention in 1955.

The unprecedented resolution under the never-before invoked article 33 of the ILO Constitution allows for a series of measures to take effect on 30 November and calls on Myanmar to "take concrete actions" to implement the recommendations of a 1998 Commission of Inquiry, which found that resort to forced labour in the country was "widespread and systematic".

5. Campaign for child labour-free Sialkot

Member Federal Advisory Board and Co-ordinator for Campaign for Child labour Free Sialkot, Abdul Shakoor Mirza, informed that Sialkot has become the first district of Asia to achieve cent percent enrolment of 5-7 years olds in to schools. He added that sincere efforts were being made for purging the soccer ball industry from child labour on permanent basis. Sialkot is the hub of cottage industries of the country, where development of local cottage industry has assumed a model status for the developing world.

According to a survey the city is dotted with thousands labour intensive, small and medium sized enterprises engaged in quality production of sports goods, surgical instruments, gloves, badges, leather goods, martial art uniforms, cutlery and musical instruments.

This export-oriented city of the country is globally known for its skill, craftsmen and quality goods production. It earns more than $600 million annually and stands next to Karachi for export of value-added items. (Source: Child Labour News Service, November 15, 2000)

6. US companies “more aggressive towards unions”

US companies are becoming increasingly aggressive in their threats to close or move their operations abroad if labour unions seek to establish branches in their factories, says a study prepared for a commission examining the growing US trade deficit.

In mobile industries such as manufacturing and communications more than 68 per cent of US companies that have faced attempts by unions to open branches in the past two years threatened to relocate all or part of their operations, the study said. However this contrasted sharply with the late 1980s, when around 80 per cent of employers made similar threats. (Source: Financial Times, September 18, 2000)

III Panel Discussion on Linkages: Are trade sanctions a part of legitimate instruments for the elimination of child labour

(14^th November, 2000, Durban, South Africa)

A Report

A panel discussion was organised by CUTS-CITEE on 14^th November, 2000 to draw attention to the issue of applying trade sanctions as a means to deal with child labour. It was one of the fringe events held at the 16^thWorld Congress of the Consumers International. The specific objective of the discussion was to gather views of the consumer organisations on this issue. Moderated by Pradeep S. Mehta of CUTS, the panel had two speakers, Robin Simpson of National Consumer Council (NCC), UK and Zafar Mirza of The Network for Consumer Protection, Pakistan. Over 50 participants, mainly from various consumer organisations from around the world attended the meeting.

To start with, Mehta introduced the background and context of the whole issue of linkages which scuttled the Seattle ministerial conference of the WTO in 1999. Poor labour standards, including the issue of child labour, is one of the major criticisms against developing countries. He identified some of the issues that need to be addressed while examining the applicability of trade sanctions as a tool to achieve the objective of elimination of child labour. The questions that were posed in this debate are:

q Does the current debate on “linkages” reflect the concerns expressed by developing countries vis-à-vis sustainable development?

q Will a multilaterally agreed text on linkages at the WTO and possible trade sanctions put an end to problems like child labour since the countries may not have the resources to rehabilitate them?

Robin Simpson, who initiated the discussion argued that it is not right on the part of the developed countries to push for linking child labour issues with international trade as the present day developed countries had experienced several social evils during the process of their own development. Therefore developing countries should be given sufficient time to get rid of social evils such as child labour rather than imposing trade sanctions.

Zafar Mirza spoke on the ineffectiveness of trade sanctions in eradicating child labour by citing examples from Pakistan. Pakistan has been in the limelight since the linkages debate came out. The football industry in Sialkot was one of the major targets for trade sanctions and boycott. Those who campaigned against child labour abuses in this sector thought that child labour has been eradicated in this sector. The fact is that these children lost their jobs in the football industry, and entered into hazardous occupations, which paid far lower than the football sector.

The third speaker: Wibo Koole of Consumentenbond, The Hague, who was to present an opposite view, did not show up. However, Rhoda Karpatkin, president of the powerful US-based Consumers Union participated actively, and came out convinced that poverty eradication and socio-economic development is the only cure for a curse like child labour.

The panel discussion concluded with the following remarks:

q Unless we tackle the core issue of poverty, child labour will stay.

q There are both endogenous and exogenous factors among the cause for poverty. ‘Terms of trade’ is a major external factor.

q The gulf between the rich and the poor is increasing and it would further exacerbate child labour.

The meeting came to the conclusion that trade sanctions are not the right and intelligent way to deal with child labour since the issue has it roots in poverty. Since the effects of trade sanctions would be mostly negative.

IV ICFTU HEDGES

Merchants of poison worried for jobs

When EU health ministers were debating new tobacco control laws in June 2000, a trade union from Germany protested against plans to put warning label “smoking kills” on cigarette packets meant for exports to Third World countries, saying that it would be a slap in the face of tobacco workers in the Europe. More shockingly, they also opposed the plans to use same maximum tar and nicotine limits for products destined for other countries as those prevail in the EU. In this regard Pradeep Mehta, Secretary General of CUTS had exchange of thoughts with James Howard of International Confederation of Free Trade Unions (ICFTU). Mr. Howard however in his reply, very cleverly skipped the issue of German trade unions’ demand for no labels and less strict warnings for export consignments. We reproduce the letters for a larger audience.

******************************

To: james.howard@icftu.org <James Howard)

From: cuts@cuts.org <Pradeep S. Mehta>

Date: 2000.07.12

Dear James,

Greetings from CUTS, India!

This is with reference to the Tobacco industry in Europe and the stand taken by the German trade union on this matter. I am shocked that the trade union has taken a stand that export goods should not carry the same level of warning as those, which would be sold in Europe. This is indeed iniquitous and displays lack of understanding and respect for your brothers in the South. Perhaps you may want to intervene in this matter.

Trust you have read the news and letters in the FT: ‘EU likely to tighten controls on tobacco’ (June 29) and the related letters of Dr Karin Vladimirov of the German Tobacco Workers Union (“Tobacco proposal a slap in the face for workers”, June 13) and Jennifer Mindel, Imperial College of Medicine (“Tobacco proposals may boost the overall number of jobs”, 20 June).

My heart bleeds for the 11,000 workers of the German tobacco workers who would perhaps lose their jobs if the European Union Health Ministers approve the measure for cigarette manufacturers to carry the warning that “smoking kills”.

Dr Vladimirov exhibits the typical disdain for the poor in the developing world by lamenting the scope of the bill to include exports as well: “We are most concerned about the export clause in the proposal, which says products destined for countries outside the EU regardless of the foreign markets demands”.

The argument that this will help save their jobs is quite hollow, when the same trade union in another context is worried about the conditions of the poor workers in the South, and therefore the demand for a social clause. These double standards are quite funny.

In 1990, a bill: Pesticide Export Reform Act was introduced in the US Congress to amend the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act to impose a total ban on exports of domestically prohibited pesticides. The amendment never went through due to strong lobbying by the chemical industry, whose lobbyists termed it as the “circle of jobs bill”. They howled that thousands of American jobs would be lost without significant gains for the environment or human health.

Their argument is very similar to Dr Vladimirov’s, that if they don’t make it some else will, so why should the US manufacturers loose. Therefore rather than address this problem at a multilateral level, the industry in the West continue to manufacture and export tonnes of chemicals, which they cannot sell locally.

Looking forward to your valued response, I remain,

With warm regards,

Pradeep. S. Mehta

****************************

From: Howard, James

To: CUTS

Date: 2000.09.22

Dear Pradeep,

Further to your message on this subject, I am writing to make the ICFTU position clear.

The ICFTU considers it unacceptable for a government to export a product which it has judged to be dangerous or potentially damaging to health, without at least equivalent protections or warnings to those it provides to safeguard its own citizens.

We believe legislation is needed to prevent companies taking advantage of the absence of minimum national legislation in a country, by undertaking practices in that country that would not be condoned elsewhere.

In just the same way, a company should not be able to take advantage of the violation of internationally-agreed fundamental workers' rights in one country by exploiting the workers there, when those same violations would be entirely unacceptable in the overwhelming majority of countries in the world.

I trust this clarifies our position. Could you kindly acknowledge receipt of this e-mail.

Yours sincerely,

James Howard

********************

To: james.howard@icftu.org <James Howard)

From: cuts@cuts.org <Pradeep S. Mehta>

Date: 2000.09.23

Dear James,

Greetings from CUTS, India!

Thank you for your email of 22^nd September. I am glad that you have clarified your position. However, you should also take the matter with German Trade Union of being more sensitive to such concern.