Dear all, Last week we watched in muted disbelief TV news reports of the arrival of close to 200 tonnes of waste at a port in Tamil Nadu, India. The stinking waste impounded by Customs Officials is said to have been shipped to India from countries like Spain, Malaysia and Saudi Arabia. For more information visit: <http://www.timesnow.tv/195-tonnes-of-medical-waste-dumped-in-India/articles how/4326826.cms> http://www.timesnow.tv/195-tonnes-of-medical-waste-dumped-in-India/articlesh ow/4326826.cms There is little information in the public domain as to who sent these hazardous substances and for what purpose. Civil society organisations, grass roots activists and campaigners and intellectuals who play a watchdog role in such matters, point to the increasing trend of developed countries trading in waste with developing countries. Free trade agreements (FTAs) between two or more countries is one way of facilitating this trade in trash amongst trade in other goods and services. For example, a group of civil society organisations and campaigners submitted a memorandum to the Japanese Government in December 2006 protesting the lowering of tariff barriers on waste that would be exported from Japan to Philippines. The Japan-Philippines Economic Partnership Agreement (JPEPA) signed in September 2006 includes a list of items categorised as waste that would be exported to Philippines. This arrangement has been couched in the seemingly innocent terminology of 'recycling'. Concerned advocates feared that the JPEPA would turn Philippines into a dumping ground for Japanese waste. There is no indication whether Japan would reciporcate by accepting Filipino waste under JPEPA. For more information visit: http://www.bilaterals.org/article.php3?id_article=6739 Such are the terms of trade between unequal partners. In fact people at the community level in whose backyards such waste materials ultimatey end up in developing countries, often remain excluded from the process of negotiations of these free trade agreements. India is negotiating free trade agreements with several countries and regional trade agreements with regional organisations like the EU (30 countries by the last count). The trade agreement with Japan is close to being signed. 10 rounds of negotiations have happened since 2007. The report of the India-Japan Study group submitted in 2006 talks about recycling and sharing of experience. Para 6.43 talks about Japan sharing its experiences of turning recycling into a trillion dollar industry. What shape will this sharing take when it gets into the text of the trade agreement? Will it remain confined to technology sharing or extend to dumping of waste as well? We know very little. For the text of the report of the Joint-study group visit: http://www.mofa.go.jp/region/asia-paci/india/report0606.pdf How much information about these negotiations is available on the website of Government India's Department of Commerce? Only a handful of paras that have not been updated in recent months (http://commerce.gov.in/trade/international_ta_current_details.asp#b11) are accessible. We know that 10 rounds of negotiations have taken place thanks to information made available on the website of Japan's Ministry of Finance. Without divulging much about the content of the negotiations, the Japanese Government regularly uploads information about an upcoming round of negotiations four days in advance. A summary of the topics discussed is uploaded soon after the completion of each round. The Department of Commerce has not begun to show such courtesy to Indian citizens yet despite the existence of the Right to Information Act since 2005. The report of the Indo-Japan study group is available only on the website of Japan's Finance Ministry. If and when bio-medical, plastic, electronic and other kinds of hazardous waste arrives in India under the free trade agreements they will not be dumped in North Block or South Block or in the residences of the diplomats, technical experts and negotiators who negotiate these agreements in secrecy. Sitting in Delhi they will be safe. Such waste will end up in the States - in ports, small towns and villages where people who did not have a say in these negotiations continue to live. Has anybody from the gram sabhas up to the Chief Ministers been consulted before these negotiations? Does India's negotiating position have the approval of the National Development Council which according to the Planning Commission is the highest decision-making body as far as the socio-economic development of the country is concerned? In the US federal government puts a lot of information in the public domain about such agreements before they take effect. For example, the website of the US Trade Administration explains why FTAs are important and how people may benefit from it. Analysis of the opportunities and likely benefits to each US State is proactively disclosed on the wesbite. People are invited to make submissions on the contents of the agreement before it enters into force. People's views about the US free trade agreement with Korea is due today. For more details visit: http://www.regulations.gov/search/Regs/home.html#documentDetail?R=0900006480 9fb466 <http://www.regulations.gov/search/Regs/home.html#documentDetail?R=090000648 09fb466 In> In India are Chief Ministers and their ministerial colleagues in the States informed about the likely social and economic impact of the trade agreements that the Union Government is negotiating? Is Parliament taken into confidence on these matters. Do our lawmakers know enough about what the government is trading into or trading off? Very little information about such processes (if they exist) is available in the public domain. In India we do not have a policy of how, when and in what manner people must be consulted during the process of policy formulation. The European Commission has established minimum standards for public consultation on all policy matters including trading arrangements. For more information on these minimum standards visit: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2002:0704:FIN:EN:P DF People must be consulted and opportunities must be created for them to submit their views to the policy framers. The European Commission takes these submissions into consideration while formulating policies. The Commission does not see any contradiction between representative democracy and public consultation of this kind. India is negotiating a regional trade agreement with the EU. Yet hardly any information of value is put up on the website of the Department of Commerce. A study regards the potential impact of such an FTA between EU and India is available only on the European Commission's website. Similar studies are not traceable on the website of India's Department of Commerce. It is high time organisations, campaigners and advocators insisted on the Dept. of Commerce to comply with the RTI Act especially section 4(1)(c) which requires proactive disclosure in the public domain of all facts and figures while formulating important policies. It is high time, the potential of RTI is harnessed for matters beyond ration cards, passports and poorly constructed roads or non-existent tube-wells. Several organisations, campaigners and advocators for basic issues of livelihood protaction, health care, education, farmers' rights, women and children's rights gathered in New Delhi a couple of weeks ago demanding among other things transparency regards these trade negotiations. An article published by journalist Patralekha Chatterjee on these issues in two prominent dailies is copied below. Thanks Venkatesh Nayak and Sanchita Bakshi Access to Information Programme Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative B-117, I Floor, Sarvodaya Enclave New Delhi- 110 017 tel: 91-11- 2686 4678/ 2685 0523 fax: 91-11- 2686 4688 website: www.humanrightsinitiative.org alternate email: <mailto:[email protected]> [email protected]
<file:///C:/DOCUME~1/SMILE/LOCALS~1/Temp/msohtml1/01/clip_image001.jpg> logo <file:///C:/DOCUME~1/SMILE/LOCALS~1/Temp/msohtml1/01/clip_image001.gif> Delhi, Mumbai, Kolkata, London Hyderabad, Chennai, Bengaluru Monday, 14 September 2009 Source: 1) http://www.asianage.com/presentation/leftnavigation/opinion/op-ed/unhealthy- effects-of-ftas.aspx 2) http://www.deccanchronicle.com/op-ed/unhealthy-effects-ftas-701 Unhealthy effects of FTAs Patralekha Chatterjee Sept.14 : Much has been said about the "informal ministerial" meeting of key members of the World Trade Organisation (WTO) in Delhi last week and India's contribution towards reenergising the Doha Round. In contrast, there is little discussion about the raft of bilateral free trade agreements (FTAs) which India is currently negotiating with several industrialised countries and powerful regional blocs including Japan and the European Union (EU). Beyond the charmed circle of the negotiators - the commerce and trade bureaucracies - and industry lobby groups, few know what is being negotiated, what is really at stake and what is being traded off for anticipated gains. Transparency in the FTA process is vital because FTAs have become prominent trade policy strategies of the Government of India and bilateral agreements are being negotiated outside the parameters of international trade mechanisms endorsed by the WTO. The point was made vigorously at the recent National Consultation on India's FTAs in Delhi. The consultation was organised by the Forum of FTAs, a coalition of over 70 civil society groups. India has already carried out 10 rounds of negotiations with Japan, six rounds with the EU and three rounds with the European Free Trade Association (EFTA), which includes Switzerland, Norway, Iceland and Lichtenstein as its members. One of the biggest concerns is the likely impact of FTAs on access to medicines. Enthusiasts of free trade root for bilateral trade negotiations as they are usually concluded in a much shorter time frame than the WTO process. India has fought hard to include public health safeguards in its patent law which patients groups are using to challenge patents on key medicines. However, many of these gains are now at risk. FTAs are likely to contain provisions creating greater monopolies on medicines, providing for stricter enforcement of intellectual property rights, pointed out a spokesperson of Medecin Sans Frontieres' Campaign for Access to Essential Medicines during the discussion. FTAs, particularly with developed countries, typically push for standards that go far beyond even those negotiated by developing countries at the WTO. In some cases, the terms are even harsher than those practised within the developed world, warn the Forum Against FTAs. The consultation drew attention to the worrying terms of FTAs such as the extension of patents beyond 20 years; data exclusivity, which delays the entry of a generic medicine in a market by 10-15 years even after the expiry of a patent; and the patent-registration linkage, which prevents the registration of a generic manufacturer before the expiry of patent. The impact of these FTAs on health has been seen in other developing and least developed countries that have signed FTAs in the past. One example, "Jordan was required under the terms of its WTO accession package and its FTA with the US to introduce TRIPS-plus rules. Medicine prices have increased drastically, and TRIPS-plus rules were partly responsible for this increase. Furthermore, stricter levels of intellectual property protection have conferred few benefits with respect to foreign direct investment, domestic research and development, or accelerating introduction of new, effective medicines", Oxfam pointed out in a March 2007 report. TRIPS stands for Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights. The TRIPS Agreement is part of a "package" to which those countries seeking WTO membership have to adhere. TRIPS-PLUS obligations go beyond those imposed by the WTO's Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights. The issues linking free trade agreements, the right to health and access to medicines that came up during the consultation were brought up in a recent report by the UN Special Rapporteur on the Right to Health. "Many countries have signed or are currently engaged in negotiations on extensive trade agreements, including bilateral investment treaties, Free Trade Agreements, economic partnership agreements etc. Such agreements have extensive implications for pharmaceutical patent protection, which can directly impact access to medicines. Some developed countries, for example, have negotiated FTAs which reflect their standard of intellectual property protection. These agreements are usually negotiated with little transparency or participation from the public and often establish TRIPS-plus provision. These provisions undermine the safeguards and flexibilities that developing countries sought to preserve under TRIPs", notes a March 2009 report by eminent Indian lawyer, Anand Grover, currently the UN Special Rapporteur on the right to health. Studies indicate that TRIPS-plus standards increase medicine prices as they delay or restrict the introduction of generic competition. "As FTAs can directly affect access to medicines. There is a need for countries to assess multilateral and bilateral trade agreements for potential health violations and that all stages of negotiations remain open and transparent", the report said. India's bilateral FTAs will impact this country and much of the developing world. Over 90 per cent of patients on life-prolonging antiretroviral drugs in low and middle income countries use generic drugs made in India and 57 per cent of medicine exports from India go to developing countries. Public interest groups such as Lawyers' Collective, Medecin Sans Frontieres and Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative who participated in the Consultation want transparency and democratic process in ongoing FTA negotiations. "When the world is moving towards a rules-based trading system, what is traded off must be in the public domain. FTAs must have minimum standards of public consultations. To what extent is Parliament taken into confidence during such negotiations? Are FTAs getting on to the agenda of even the National Development Council when chief ministers of different states meet? Are the chief ministers taken into confidence when FTAs are negotiated though a lot of the resultant action will take place in the states", asks a spokesperson of the Access to Information Programme in Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative. Activists warn that in the absence of minimum standards of public consultation on critical policy matters in the FTAs, they may test the Right to Information Act which requires sharing of information on a proactive basis. Patralekha Chatterjee writes on contemporary development issues, and can be contacted at [email protected] [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
